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

[David Singer <[e-mail]>]

> On Dec 4, 2014, at 6:51 , Ron <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 10:33:04AM -0800, David Singer wrote:
>> 
>> Consider finally: a small company for whom WebRTC is important.
>> 
>> Let’s look at the choices:
>> 
>> 1.  Follow the mandate, implement VP8, and risk a ruinous lawsuit from Nokia.
>> 
>> 2.  Reject the mandate, do not implement VP8, and be formally therefore not conformant and therefore not in receipt of a license from company X; risk a ruinous lawsuit from X.
>> 
>> 3.  Do not implement WebRTC, and risk a ruinous loss of relevance.
> 
> This seems more like a hypothetical small strawman than a situation
> that any *real* small company has expressed to this group.
> 
> Your concern for small operators is heartwarming, but I think if you
> consult the list archives to see what such people have actually said
> for themselves, the only ruinous legal barrier that Nokia appears to
> have them worried about is the IPR it holds on H.264 that is outside
> the pool MPEG-LA operates, with no clear guarantee of its terms.
> 
> And we *still* don't have an IPR statement from them about this.
> How many times should we need to ask them to respect the IETF process?

I’m sorry, is H.264 a specification in progress at the IETF? You will find declarations from them at ISO, IEC, and ITU, I think. They state (as I recall) RAND.  (Not “unwilling to license”.)

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.