Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Basil Mohamed Gohar wrote:
> 
> For starters, there is no evidence whatsoever that there is a viable IPR
> concern with VP8, but there exist baseless allegations.  In fact, what little
> doubt that there might have been one was settled by the agreement signed
> between Google and MPEG-LA [1] a short while ago, which resulted in
> MPEG-LA withdrawing their attempt a forming a patent pool for VP8
> altogether.  An attempt, I might add, that had little public activity save for its
> initial announcement once VP8 was being concerned for international
> standards.  In fact, the extremely generous terms of the agreement lend
> credence to the fact that there was little that existing that would have been
> enforceable.
>

Please remember that Nokia has submitted an IPR declaration about VP8:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2035/
 
VP8 has been proposed as basis for standardization in MPEG. If that proceeds, there will be points in the process where companies need to make IPR declarations (RF, RAND, or neither). In that case we would eventually know more about VP8 IPR status than what is currently in public. 

> Furthermore, the fact that there is an existing licensing structure for
> H.264 give exactly zero assurances of protections from IPR claims, because
> not all licensors of H.264 technology are a member of the MPEG-LA patent
> pool agreement, and there have been numerous patent cases related to
> H.264 and other technologies thought to be covered by RAND and FRAND
> terms.
>

The H.264 RAND/FRAND commitments do not depend on MPEG-LA membership but stem from the MPEG IPR rules and declarations. 

Markus