Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)

[David Singer <[e-mail]>]

> On Dec 4, 2014, at 12:40 , Silvia Pfeiffer <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 5 Dec 2014 07:30, "David Singer" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On Dec 4, 2014, at 12:20 , Silvia Pfeiffer <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 5 Dec 2014 06:25, "David Singer" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On Dec 3, 2014, at 21:16 , Silvia Pfeiffer <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Indeed, that's why I said point 1. in David's list doesn't make sense, since he's talking about a small company getting sued by Nokia.
> > > >
> > > > So, your conclusion to my question is “Ship VP8, most of you probably won’t get sued. Good luck.  Try not to be too successful or your luck may change.”
> > >
> > > Yes and it's the same answer as for h.264 and h.265 for that matter.
> >
> > It is not at all.  Where are the “unwilling to license” statements for H.264?  Where is the VP8 license coverage from the larger players not in the MPEG-LA agreement?
> >
> > > Only add to that the extra licence fee you heavy to pay, which is a certainty - the risk of getting sued is uncertain and frankly quite small compared to other risks that you take as a small company.
> 
> That can very nicely be construed as anticompetitive behaviour I would think in my layman knowledge. It certainly doesn't look like playing fair.

Sorry, I can’t work out what you say is not playing fair?  Using someone else’s patents and assuming that they will give everyone a license?

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.