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

Erik Lagerway <erik@hookflash.com> Thu, 12 April 2012 15:31 UTC

Return-Path: <erik@hookflash.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 B89E321F8699 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:31:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 gbrqgmZQ39qF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:31:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C76AD21F8671 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:31:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pbbrp16 with SMTP id rp16so607575pbb.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:31:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:message-id:cc:x-mailer:from:subject:date:to :x-gm-message-state; bh=ZkXhU/+9Zsbix8dCAfzHiMm9xQMJT/aTPXycngKnA04=; b=cQEcnbOTbLBIvZoTk456f9gRChbZnIG8uecKvou6GRNHa+1CGJ2VgSY2WiPvszEf1z qmhMGn9swWDl0Q7ED26E+F3O0CkdMBkVxqBEToLOsZuZUrCuCUgY7/+0gXbOoQLSl0UX hRHLciMJsk6GEe0TUQSwri8z8u+uCKa+MsehHe0JJklayvDu7iK9Ne32F4Umt8GPPea1 6HEWpdYZsN6thQHEZWLJSI2YfsP+9Ip+8LlICLnCSzgORfuZXpcm5lo1wlDDKG0dF6K3 t0fGlQS4cWclB97lP9dwKkNnmuv+N5/r6wO76QZFDtCShwV/22wlGLWTmj9Ix6aj/R4l YXgQ==
Received: by 10.68.138.232 with SMTP id qt8mr2616623pbb.114.1334244666340; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:31:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.108] (S010678cd8e61db1f.vn.shawcable.net. [174.7.103.13]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i8sm5950208pbf.72.2012.04.12.08.31.03 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:31:04 -0700 (PDT)
References: <CAMKM2Ly-xnVEciL941uOu1Bgwc-wssZ7HNkQuBhsCcgyqfuk5Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAOHm=4uAcLax=25Lw+YMps=swXdAym=qRXtaGQVAXHaeSpoTCQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACrD=+_iMFQaOrwpd3YBNCiZyneiE-YuQtxCcQo4hOcc5-Ok_w@mail.gmail.com> <046501cd179a$38ab3840$aa01a8c0$@packetizer.com> <CAOHm=4v0qaJpfttxk6-vY4=ieoVyvhk+i6iK90sv3mjU-EGH1A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOHm=4v0qaJpfttxk6-vY4=ieoVyvhk+i6iK90sv3mjU-EGH1A@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-140D86EF-150A-469B-8D18-8F51276FDF20
Message-Id: <49E8B9A6-27F1-4CAE-9DF6-A869D1FE4D52@hookflash.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9B176)
From: Erik Lagerway <erik@hookflash.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:31:03 -0700
To: Dean Willis <dean.willis@softarmor.com>
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnKihLAXfWPNBEHqGkCpVcFi0bGsLDU0575MbC/8fQVYvT+xWf/0FW7zPTjuSRDiJPu5Sk4
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Google VP8 Patent Grant for third parties [Was Re:Proposal for H.263 baseline codec]
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: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 15:31:07 -0000

As a poor and rather nervous developer trying to avoid any slithering reptiles laying await in the grass, VP8 seems to be the not so obvious choice here. Would be better if Google could get behind this a little more as the vagueness could drive some to using H.263 (plegh), liability or not, most perceive 263 as royalty free.

As it stands...

VP8 +1

On 2012-04-11, at 11:29 PM, Dean Willis <dean.willis@softarmor.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> I said before, either direction is a gamble.  But, the odds of not getting
> successfully sued are in your favor with H.264, in my opinion.  Here's why:
> 
> 
> That's arguable. As a small developer (and a poor one), I'm not able to pay for licensing H.264. Therefore, my odds of getting sued (if anybody notices my work) are pretty high. Just ask Microsoft what the odds of getting sued for using H.264 are ... or the costs of trying to license it (reports are that Moto was asking $4 billion for their patents alone).
> 
> http://www.rethink-wireless.com/article.asp?article_id=23154
> 
> I'm not saying VP8 is any safer in the long run, but it's certainly easier to comply with its licensing terms up front. So I might accidentally infringe, but it wouldn't be willful (at least on the essential core; there are a lot of patents about there about stuff you might want to do with the video that cover both codecs).
> 
> Think of it as picking up a random snake that MIGHT be venomous, versus picking up one that's already buzzing its tail and striking at movement (caught one in my yard Monday, actually).
> 
> The thing to remember is that you need to handle both with respect. They're still snakes. Even an unenvenomed bite can get infected. And the quiet one might be a cobra instead of a rattlesnake.
> 
> --
> Dean
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb