Re: [rtcweb] Video Codec discussion in Thursday agenda slot

On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 2:50 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:

> On Mar 12, 2013, at 11:43 , Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
>
>> On 03/12/2013 07:12 PM, David Singer wrote:
>>> I am sorry, I don't understand.
>>> 
>>> At the last meeting, the codec discussion was deferred at the request of
>>> one company and with no reason offered.  It was delayed so late that 
>>> people, such as my colleague, who had flown in for this discussion had 
>>> already arrived when it was deferred.
>>> 
>>> This time, we have late-breaking news which is missing important details, 
>>> warrants significant preparatory discussion before the meeting, and you 
>>> have justified requests for time from multiple companies, and you go ahead?
>> 
>> I am very sympathetic with the plight of people who don't have time to 
>> analyze the new information provided. Believe me, we did the best we could 
>> to make it available earlier - but as you know, it is not possible to 
>> announce a deal until the deal has actually been signed.
>> 
>> At the last meeting, we knew that this was likely to happen, but we could 
>> (of course) not breathe a word about it - it was clear from the traffic on 
>> the mailing list and the arguments being fielded in presentations that in 
>> the absence of information about the agreement, our assertions about the IPR 
>> situation of VP8 would simply not be taken at face value. This was the 
>> reason we requested a delay at that time.
>> 
>> At this meeting, we believe the important cards are on the table:
>
> The license, Harald; it is not yet available.  The license and licensors.  
> The price is only one aspect of the license, as I am sure you understand.
>
> Even without this license, this announcement represents a significant change, 
> and people need time to discuss and understand it.
>
>> H.264 is still a royalty-required codec in all its profiles, and has many 
>> patent holders insisting on royalties being paid both outside and inside the 
>> MPEG-LA patent pool; VP8 is still a codec where all the IPR holders that 
>> have made declarations have declared their willingness to license on a 
>> royalty free basis (either directly or via Google).
>
> I think someone has already gently pointed out an existing suit.
>

[Bo B]: I belive this is a big problem

* We know that not even all the organizations that responded to MPEG LA's call
  are part of the deal and Google cannot (yet) comment on why or who they are

* As David mentions above, it seems that there is at least one company who did
  _not_ respond to MPEG LA's call and that does not license RF. As VP8 was
  not developed in a SDO, there have been no obligations to declare any
  IPR, and of course there is no requirement to license on specific terms.
  How many others who did not respond to MPEG LA's call but have IPR are there?

>> 
>> We appreciate the need to have time to evaluate the specific words of the 
>> license statements that are forthcoming, and the need for the people who 
>> haven't made their IPR declarations over the last couple of years of 
>> discussion to do so within the next couple of weeks - but we do think that 
>> it is important to use the face to face time that we have here in Orlando to 
>> lay to rest any *other* issues than the licensing terms and other issues 
>> derived from Google's announcement.
>
> I am not sure we can have a reasoned consideration of 'other issues derived' 
> at such short notice.  
>
> Look, I'd like our discussions and decisions to be informed and considered, 
> and there simply isn't time for either.
>
>> 
>> Harald
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb