Re: [rtcweb] Cisco to open source its H.264 implementation and absorb MPEG-LA licensing fees

[Ron <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 10:34:15PM +0000, Stephan Wenger wrote:
> On 12.12.2013, 16:43 , "Ron" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >We so far can't even get the organisations who have active contributors
> >in this WG and which hold H.264 patents to comply with their obligations
> >for disclosure under the IETF requirements.[1]
> 
> According to my reading of the IETF IPR policy documents there is no such
> obligation.

Which part of:

   IPR disclosures under Sections 6.1.1. and 6.1.2 are required with
   respect to IPR that is owned directly or indirectly, by the
   individual or his/her employer or sponsor (if any) or that such
   persons otherwise have the right to license or assert.

would you say indicates there is no such obligation?


I won't discount that there may be some slippery reading of the requirements
which people acting in bad faith may be able to ooze between, but if that
were actually the case, then that would be a compelling reason to completely
exclude this technology from consideration at all.

Where is the wide open door that permits them not to disclose which I am
missing here?  It's not like anyone could plausibly be unaware of which
companies are major holders of IPR relevant to H.264, and I'm pretty certain
there are messages posted to this list where people directly confirm their
company is one.

Large amounts of it were declared (with whatever questionable merit) as
applying to VP8.  Are you saying the people who declared that are unaware
that H.264 is also being proposed for use here?

  Ron