Re: [rtcweb] Google VP8 Patent Grant for third parties [Was Re:Proposal for H.263 baseline codec]

["Paul E. Jones" <[e-mail]>]

Basil,

I disagree.  If VP8 is believed so strongly to be free of any IPR, then
Google could boldly indemnify a company.  Personally, I have my doubts that
it is.

MPEG-LA is not in the business of indemnifying people, nor do I believe they
would make a claim that H.264 is not covered by another patent holder.  That
said, I do believe that there is a significantly increased probability that
all patent holders either license through MPEG-LA or have listed IPR on
H.264 in the ITU's IPR database.

I would have a high degree of confidence that I could identify all H.264 IPR
holders.  I have no degree of confidence I could do the same for VP8.

Paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> Of Basil Mohamed Gohar
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 12:25 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Google VP8 Patent Grant for third parties [Was
> Re:Proposal for H.263 baseline codec]
> 
> While it would be great if such a thing were possible, even the MPEG-LA
> does not indemnify users of H.264 from any IPR claims.  Expecting Google
> to do so is unreasonable.  Moreover, there are other practical issues such
> as NDAs that patent litigation frequently invokes that would still allow
> someone to be sued even if Google did offer indemnification.
> 
> The strongest thing Google can do, I think, is what they already do in
> relation to nullifying all grants to their patents that cover VP8 should
> someone engage in a lawsuit against Google.  The software patent
> landscape, sadly, does not leave many more options on the table.
> Perhaps someone more familiar with patent law can expand and/or correct
> what I've said.
> 
> It should go without saying that IANAL.
> 
> --
> Libre Video
> http://librevideo.org
> 
> 
> On 04/03/2012 10:45 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote:
> >
> > Will Google indemnify all implementers against any IPR claims?  Do
> > that, and I think the debate would be over.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > *From:*[e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] *On
> > Behalf Of *Serge Lachapelle
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 03, 2012 1:55 PM
> > *To:* [e-mail]
> > *Subject:* [rtcweb] Google VP8 Patent Grant for third parties [Was
> > Re:Proposal for H.263 baseline codec]
> >
> > [Forking the thread]
> >
> > Hello folks,
> >
> >
> > Google confirms that the VP8 patent grant applies to both third-party
> > hardware and software implementations of VP8.
> >
> > Google encourages the community to create hardware implementations of
> > VP8, and has recently blogged about a number of new hardware
> > implementations on the WebM blog (
> > http://blog.webmproject.org/2012/03/webm-gaining-momentum-in-
> hardware.html
> > ).
> >
> > Google is quite proud of what the community has done with VP8 and
> > looks forward to seeing more implementations of VP8 in both hardware
> > and software.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > /Serge Lachapelle, Google, Stockholm
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 16:53, Stephan Wenger <[e-mail]
> > <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 3.29.2012 16:24 , "Basil Mohamed Gohar" <[e-mail]
> > <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > >On 03/29/2012 10:20 AM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
> > >> The second part of your sentence may or may not be true, depending on
> > >>your
> > >> relationship with google, your willingness to use the webm
> > >>implementation
> > >> in unchanged form, and other factors.  Please see the webm license
> > >> conditions, which AFAIK can be found here:
> > >> http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/
> > >Correct.  I think you are referring to this part, explicitly:
> > >> If you or your agent or exclusive licensee institute or order or
> agree
> > >> to the institution of patent litigation against any entity (including
> > >> a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that this
> > >> implementation of VP8 or any code incorporated within this
> > >> implementation of VP8 constitutes direct or contributory patent
> > >> infringement, or inducement of patent infringement, then any patent
> > >> rights granted to you under this License for this implementation of
> > >> VP8 shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
> > >Perhaps I assumed that that is a very reasonable part of the license.
> > >That is, if you are suing someone alleging a patent infringement within
> > >VP8, you are no longer granted the license to use VP8's patented
> > >technologies that Google owns.
> >
> > Yes, that's one issue.  Call it personal preference for different type
> of
> > reciprocity conditions :-)  (I could rant about it for hours, but let's
> > continue to pretend that this is mostly a technical mailing list)
> >
> > The other issue, though (the fact that the license grant extends only to
> > the VP8 implementation as provided by google, and does not extent to
> > derivative works such as hardware implementations) should be moderately
> > alarming even for an open source person.  With respect to this clause, I
> > will note that I criticized the licensing conditions in private and in
> > public (IETF mike) several times, months ago, and nothing happened.
> > Suggests to me one of three things: (1) google is a large company and
> > decisions take time, or (2) google's legal is currently occupied with
> > other stuff, or (3) that the choice of language is intentional, and
> > intended to prevent forks.  Take your pick.
> > Stephan
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb