Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal

[Roman Shpount <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 12:29 AM, Matthew Kaufman <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>  On 11/10/2014 4:25 PM, Roman Shpount wrote:
>
>  On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Matthew Kaufman <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>>  We may be tired of this, but it isn't like we have a royalty-free
>> option for H.264 MPEG-LA or IP risk indemnification from Google.. So what's
>> changed for the browser makers?
>>
>>
>  May be I am missing something, but MPEG-LA does not provide IP risk
> indemnification for H.264. All they sell is a very limited license to the
> patent pool from the group members.
>
>
> I am not my employer's lawyers, nor am I the lawyers for any of the other
> folks who've spoken up about the IPR issues over the years. But these folks
> apparently feel that there's something different between "specification
> developed in an open standards process" + "licenses to listed IPR available
> from patent pool" and "some code Google says is free" for whatever reasons
> they have.
>
> You'd have to ask them to see why that's different.
>
>
I am not the lawyer either, but there is a difference
between "specification developed in an open standards process" + "licenses
to listed IPR available from patent pool" vs Google offering indemnity
against third party IPR claims. I believe everyone can agree that "open
standards process"  is a requirement for an MTI video codec. Royalty free
RAND terms are highly desired. The indemnity is just wishful thinking. I
cannot think of a single codec patent pool that offer indemnity. I also do
not see much difference between  "licenses to listed IPR available from
patent pool" and "licenses to listed IPR are available from Google" as long
as they are available under royalty free RAND terms. I doubt anybody will
form the patent pool to collect no money.
_____________
Roman Shpount