Re: [rtcweb] ~"I'd love it if patents evaporated...If not now, when"

Ron <> Thu, 14 November 2013 23:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C676A21E80EC for <>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:09:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.423
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.423 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i0SiXR-l5Mpc for <>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:09:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:44b8:8060:ff02:300:1:2:7]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70A8121E80B3 for <>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:09:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (HELO audi.shelbyville.oz) ([]) by with ESMTP; 15 Nov 2013 09:39:30 +1030
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by audi.shelbyville.oz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3664F4F8F3 for <>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:26:35 +1030 (CST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at audi.shelbyville.oz
Received: from audi.shelbyville.oz ([]) by localhost (audi.shelbyville.oz []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id uYdyefMU0aRN for <>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:26:33 +1030 (CST)
Received: by audi.shelbyville.oz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4BD424F902; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:26:33 +1030 (CST)
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:26:33 +1030
From: Ron <>
Message-ID: <20131114225633.GR3245@audi.shelbyville.oz>
References: <20131114205355.GD13468@verdi> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] ~"I'd love it if patents evaporated...If not now, when"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:09:46 -0000

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:16:20PM +0000, Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) wrote:
> You don¹t have to speculate. Motorola (now Google) sued Microsoft over
> H.264 patents. No one intervened, so there is no obligation nor incentive
> to do so. However, because this involved standards-essential patents, and
> Motorola participated in the standards, it has FRAND obligations for those
> SEPs, with a clear precedent for FRAND royalty rates established by MPEG
> LA for that standard. The result was Microsoft has to pay half a cent in
> royalties per product they ship containing an H.264 codec, but Motorola
> must pay $15M for breaching SEP/FRAND obligations (by demanding $4B). If
> Nokia sued anyone over H.264, a similar result is likely.

Except the proposed Cisco binary deal isn't licencing the Nokia patents,
or the Motorola patents, or any others, so they'd all still be free to
sue anyone using that.

How is this known and proven liability somehow less of a problem than the
absence of any such thing overshadowing VP8?

If we're giving credit to MPEG LA, we can also credit them for trying very
hard, and failing, to create a pool that reads on VP8.

If people are going to stand on that FUD, maybe a 25 year old codec is
the best answer here after all.