[rtcweb] VP8 litigation in Germany?

Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org> Sun, 10 March 2013 02:31 UTC

Return-Path: <stewe@stewe.org>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7BD721F87D7 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Mar 2013 18:31:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.239
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.239 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.641, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C+gCXwnCeZN3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Mar 2013 18:31:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from co1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (co1ehsobe002.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.180.185]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44A2721F87C4 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Mar 2013 18:31:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail182-co1-R.bigfish.com (10.243.78.246) by CO1EHSOBE032.bigfish.com (10.243.66.97) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 02:31:44 +0000
Received: from mail182-co1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail182-co1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56CCD8800C2 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 02:31:44 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.240.133; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:BL2PRD0710HT005.namprd07.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: 3
X-BigFish: PS3(zzc85ehzz1f42h1ee6h1de0h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1082kzz17326ah18c673h8275bhz2fh2a8h668h839hbe3he5bhf0ah1288h12a5h12bdh137ah1441h1504h1537h153bh162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h1ad9h1b0ah1155h)
Received-SPF: pass (mail182-co1: domain of stewe.org designates 157.56.240.133 as permitted sender) client-ip=157.56.240.133; envelope-from=stewe@stewe.org; helo=BL2PRD0710HT005.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ; .outlook.com ;
Received: from mail182-co1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail182-co1 (MessageSwitch) id 1362882701535064_28935; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 02:31:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from CO1EHSMHS009.bigfish.com (unknown [10.243.78.251]) by mail182-co1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75B73800DC for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 02:31:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from BL2PRD0710HT005.namprd07.prod.outlook.com (157.56.240.133) by CO1EHSMHS009.bigfish.com (10.243.66.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 02:31:41 +0000
Received: from BL2PRD0710MB349.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.2.49]) by BL2PRD0710HT005.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.102.40]) with mapi id 14.16.0275.006; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 02:31:40 +0000
From: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: VP8 litigation in Germany?
Thread-Index: AQHOHTdlrWoXGfl7J0qzyy7s7WzxBA==
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 02:31:40 +0000
Message-ID: <CD613089.973B9%stewe@stewe.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.255.102.4]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CD613089973B9stewesteweorg_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: stewe.org
Subject: [rtcweb] VP8 litigation in Germany?
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 02:31:51 -0000

Hi,
An additional data point.
Florian Mueller writes in his patent blog (http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/patent-clouds-remain-over-vp8-google.html) that he has attended a court hearing in Mannheim, Germany, where, according to his blog, "Counsel for Nokia indeed based the infringement allegation in no small part on what the specifications of the Google-controlled VP8 standard say, which is an unmistakable sign that Nokia considers EP1206881 to be inevitably infringed by all implementations of VP8."
Now, I understand that Mr. Mueller is not particularly highly regarded by a whole bunch of people in the open source community.  I myself find a number of other statements in this blog post, however carefully worded, somewhat questionable.  OTOH, I consider it very unlikely that he made up all those reported facts.
That my former colleagues in Nokia decide to sue over this patent (if they have done so) does, of course, not mean that the VP8 implementation of HTC infringes, let alone all VP8 implementations.  Quite likely we will never know either way—most patent lawsuits are settled out of court.
One other data point: Mr. Mueller is correct in that Nokia is not a member of the H.264 pool.  Nor are they members in any other video coding related patent pool that I'm aware of, despite IMO having one of the strongest video coding research teams in the industry (I was part of that myself, a while ago).
Regards,
Stephan