IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] VP8 litigation in Germany?

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Sun, 10 March 2013 18:19 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BB3721F88C7 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 11:19:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.575
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.575 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hGWLwimdfo-u for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 11:19:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x22a.google.com (mail-ie0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B463621F8895 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 11:19:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f170.google.com with SMTP id c11so3923440ieb.15 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 11:19:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=aJD1CtQbXcZHAJWD3ywGYBB688ermGXiwFmbbOkt7XQ=; b=sneaesGFennpjSUvHx7c83KKteR4mvyqiN7N0qVYRwJvgTClnWV1ujPVzohLU2HhE3 ReQtJ21QI3E2pvNJuYqcxPfdHMaTzEcwyHe4PClyF9iCSjKqzyT1JBOvCP/tkCxhL7FJ 02dwMudloSFbP5I1n0/P+a+YNJtTH2OYaKjHJS1onIp/C3Q/Vo/60u/LzabRbXsrqTWk UXYY1iCPkyADd261C4hWWfHhBdltu/4111qsr/vEQdPnXVOdyX2K1mz7ljUAbyq4poal 0MePTCcjjKDu2A/yufVnJPr4e3NfErLw+T/8bsi3zMOvtlxNb2+ae8dn9DNhUO+NskZa LwzA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.36.169 with SMTP id r9mr5124464igj.96.1362939544338; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 11:19:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.43.135.202 with HTTP; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 11:19:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CD613089.973B9%stewe@stewe.org>
References: <CD613089.973B9%stewe@stewe.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 14:19:04 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMCn2NLb2gqO43aeL33kU6nayy-xdoxvuirueE6JEJ9AcA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] VP8 litigation in Germany?
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 18:19:05 -0000

On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org> wrote:
> One other data point: Mr. Mueller is correct in that Nokia is not a member
> of the H.264 pool.  Nor are they members in any other video coding related
> patent pool that I'm aware of, despite IMO having one of the strongest video
> coding research teams in the industry (I was part of that myself, a while
> ago).

Hi Stephan,

So, this seems to me to imply that any Nokia IPR on either H.264 or
VP8 is not part of any established patent pool and thus is not
publicly in the "market" of which you have previously spoken.  If that
is the case, it would seem to be an equally unknown factor for an
implementer of either.   To put this slightly different, even if Mr.
Mueller were correct, the additional context seems to result in this
being null data for our particular working group decision.

regards,

Ted Hardie

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status