Re: [rtcweb] Current H.264 licensing practice

David Benham <dabenham@gmail.com> Fri, 08 November 2013 16:14 UTC

Return-Path: <dabenham@gmail.com>
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 EBB6721E80DD for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 08:14:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 fvfVquomeSK7 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 08:14:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ee0-x22f.google.com (mail-ee0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c00::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC66921E80B9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 08:14:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ee0-f47.google.com with SMTP id c13so1125249eek.34 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 08 Nov 2013 08:14:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=8b4UqntgDIOAFYshoCndpEOln1Mz7VG6WscFVNXBqZs=; b=B+aHwEtjNR7kDKM75OmqT1A3gxJgnSIAlg9ixGmV7/ysNOx6Zm9CQ9RMCVA+9RGznY Ks3/87o1zydlTObcpBE5DM6VMYrmsSA57LvWlXbGGNdUPogTOI2r01Z19+Uekq1kVV2p GyPD8em54s3hdt5ubSrTvcRp1CDv+kNknDa35adTrgWas1NhlU85VGGsMbnrP4xmzpre +XDCE4F5q/nCdelawRtrdouWefcaqlElTBKd55OkZQEe/5Z22qLRsMgO3qA+Gsm6V7ST GmOxga6Oo61ahw39MNiUzcfakW4e7OrppHzCg9CAcwxzp1RpwvgbO1yqt/5WWy3s33Pj S0Nw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.15.61.66 with SMTP id h42mr3499469eex.62.1383927250341; Fri, 08 Nov 2013 08:14:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.15.75.1 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 08:14:10 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <87bo1vbekd.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
References: <CAM5V9Z8OxHFnnTUDX96mD0ixyHu+ikuDPzmiMz6ZSbF6oU2eNQ@mail.gmail.com> <87bo1vbekd.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 08:14:10 -0800
Message-ID: <CAM5V9Z8E_tmoApFcVwVLbWZ6=wyz+Lrif-vPYy7ifGpdxmnDBg@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Benham <dabenham@gmail.com>
To: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e016356b427090b04eaacac92
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Current H.264 licensing practice
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: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 16:14:13 -0000

That's not how most anti-trust friendly patent pools work; certainly not
this MPEG-LA one.   The T&Cs are what they are and related royalty
liabilities, if any, are what they are.   They do not change at the whim of
a single, major patent owner; instead several dozen must agree.  Thus, its
very difficult change them, providing lots of stability -- to look at the
bright side -- and that makes the summary document you dismissed nearly
timeless.

The T&Cs and royalty liabilities do not change per licensee (ergo, not
negotiated) .   They are not dependent on bandwidth rates either.   In this
case, the licensors also bound themselves to be unable increase royalties
by more than 10% every five years (...suspect Cisco can handle that).
  Providers
of on-demand titles and/or broadcast TV over the Internet with greater than
100K subscribers and remuneration (aka, subscription or ad revenue) are the
only service providers with royalty liabilities.   If still unconvinced,
ask for the full license doc and/or call MPEG-LA to seek further clarity.

Otherwise, let's wait for the Cisco binary license vs extrapolating from a
EULA.



On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:

> * David Benham:
>
> > Extrapolating from an EULA what one's rtcweb dev/distribution license
> > rights is likely way off base.
>
> I disagree, considering the broad overlap between EULAs from different
> vendors and very different product categories.
>
> > You can read the MPEG-LA's FAQ here ...
> > http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Documents/AVC_TermsSummary.pdf
> > Note the graphic and text for "(b) sublicenses" on pages 2 and 3.
>
> That document seems to date from 2004 or 2005, despite the metadata
> timestamp.  The Internet was quite different then.  Internet video
> conferencing existed, but was difficult to get to work.  Mobile
> Internet used EDGE, with bandwidths less 500 kbps.
>
> > The commercial royalties described are targeted at Service Providers of
> > on-demand titles and/or broadcast TV over the Internet with greater 100K
> > subscribers and great remuneration (aka, subscription or ad revenue).
> > Think the likes of Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc, using the video tag and
> > *not* the support-desk in your example or commercial, real-time
> > communications.
>
> Uhm, that's not how patent licensing works.  You need a license even
> if the patent owner has no ready-made offering that fits your
> particular needs.
>