Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue

[cowwoc <[e-mail]>]

On 24/10/2013 3:34 PM, Basil Mohamed Gohar wrote:
> On 10/24/2013 12:02 PM, Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE) wrote:
>> On the IPR issue, Google reached agreement with 11 patent holders. There
>> are at least 31 companies in the MPEG-LA H.264 pool. There is
>> considerable technical overlap between VP8 and H.264.
>>
>> My employer is one of those in the H.264 pool, and wasn’t one of the 11
>> companies Google reached an agreement with.
>>
>> Draw your own conclusions and take your own IPR risks.
>>
>> Personally I’d rather the IPR devil I know vs. the IPR devil I don’t know.
>>
>> Google could fix this for most potential users (through indemnification,
>> similar to what Oracle offers its Linux licensees) but has chosen not
>> to. You can draw your own conclusion there, too.
>>
>> Matthew Kaufman
> There are no conclusions to draw due to lack of sufficient evidence for
> anything actionable.  IPR FUD has delayed the adoption of many free,
> non-royalty-bearing formats for too long.  And, again, the IPR "devil we
> know" is meaningless, because there are still IP litigation threats even
> for H.264, MP3, and many other patented, royalty-bearing formats.
>
> So, it contributes little to nothing to the discussion on IPR grounds if
> a substantial declaration, as Ted has advised, is not taken, and such
> claims should really be discounted in any serious consideration when
> weighing options between formats.

     I would like to point out that we still have the option of 
mandating the use of an older codec whose IPR has expired (and let 
clients upgrade to VP8 or H264 as they fit).

     But if the community rejects this approach, then I agree that this 
should not hold back the use of VP8.

Gili