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

Gaelle Martin-Cocher <> Fri, 05 December 2014 20:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6963D1A0172 for <>; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 12:37:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Hkt0_Py954zY for <>; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 12:37:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 276881A0673 for <>; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 12:37:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 05 Dec 2014 15:37:44 -0500
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 15:37:44 -0500
Received: from ([fe80::fcd6:cc6c:9e0b:25bc]) by ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 15:37:44 -0500
From: Gaelle Martin-Cocher <>
To: Harald Alvestrand <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 20:37:43 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-CA, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 20:37:48 -0000


Would you mind clarifying if that VP8 WebM CCL agreement is up to date (copyright is 2010-2013) and if it covers all the declarations that are listed in ?


-----Original Message-----
From: rtcweb [] On Behalf Of Harald Alvestrand
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 3:41 AM
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)

On 12/05/2014 12:02 AM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
> Both yours and David's responses to this are outside the IPR gathering exercise that forms part of the standards process.
> The idea of the standards process is that a group of vendors etc write a standard, they are forced to declare their IPR involved in that standard. If the population is sufficiently large you stand a good chance of identifying all the worldwide IPR relating to that standard.
> The bigger the standards organisation, with the greater coverage of all the vendors in that space, the better the process works.
> So at that level, IPR knowledge for codecs is primarily on the decoder space and what IPR exists there.
> What Tim is saying (and a somewhat parallel situation exists with MPEG LA) is that a limited set of organisations will limit your IPR problems and give you some help with the encoder IPR. For VP8 that is limited to Google's IPR and any background research they may have done.
And, of course, the IPR owned by signatories to the license agreement that Google has sublicensed through the WebM CCL:

>   For MPEG LA it is limited to the members of the pool, which is only a subset of those involved in the parallel standards process. Yes it helps, but it does not have the degree of confidence of identifying all the existing IPR that the standards process would do.
> Regards
> Keith

rtcweb mailing list