From: Gaelle Martin-Cocher <gmartincocher@blackberry.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "rtcweb@ietf.org"
 <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again,
 still, sorry)
Thread-Index: AQHQDyewEeqVo81nB0ShjNtLfXarlJx+9/iAgAAEnoCAADvngIAA7TwAgAAPMYCAAAL6AIAAA50AgAAFzgCAAAMQAIAAHfKAgAChiICAAG9VAA==
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 20:37:43 +0000
Message-ID: <92D0D52F3A63344CA478CF12DB0648AADF359DEB@XMB111CNC.rim.net>
References: <547511DB.5050100@nostrum.com> <54759A4C.6020806@gmail.com>
 <5476092D.4010406@nostrum.com>
 <15EF2452-2C2C-420B-B972-C37EACE57850@apple.com>
 <CAHp8n2m+KMnui30_fMrwM+81UX-RUJM2ktuiZuPpRSnC7dxqcA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20141204014218.5955730.38619.3157@blackberry.com>
 <CAHp8n2=KWuTsmruz3W-90eAsptSoMYLTUVtyx9pAwcZFGXSKCQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CB477124-13AD-47EA-A607-8A81AFFA379E@apple.com>
 <CAHp8n2n1m6WRaBPNyKpowPEz_BK-SAMMFWTiB7d-eVL69w4rpQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1F326DF9-79C2-4562-853B-240D934EA235@apple.com>
 <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B28CDFF@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
 <CAD5OKxv+s_2qEGaYADi=-j-0Rn=pw_7Okd7Uv0qqKPnTyeXh+g@mail.gmail.com>
 <5480CEF2.4020204@mozilla.com>
 <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B28CF6B@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
 <54816F91.9010108@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <54816F91.9010108@alvestrand.no>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-CA, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/_njr8Lcn6MI3JSEvtgVZSbKlXDo
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again,
 still, sorry)
Precedence: list

Harald,=20

Would you mind clarifying if that VP8 WebM CCL agreement is up to date (cop=
yright is 2010-2013) and if it covers all the declarations that are listed =
in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-benham-rtcweb-vp8litigation ?

Ga=EBlle


-----Original Message-----
From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Harald Alvestran=
d
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 3:41 AM
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, st=
ill, 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 ex=
ercise 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. I=
f the population is sufficiently large you stand a good chance of identifyi=
ng all the worldwide IPR relating to that standard.
>
> The bigger the standards organisation, with the greater coverage of all t=
he vendors in that space, the better the process works.
>
> So at that level, IPR knowledge for codecs is primarily on the decoder sp=
ace 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 g=
ive 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:=20
http://www.webm-ccl.org/vp8/agreement/

>   For MPEG LA it is limited to the members of the pool, which is only a s=
ubset of those involved in the parallel standards process. Yes it helps, bu=
t 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
rtcweb@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb