Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)

[Silvia Pfeiffer <[e-mail]>]

On 5 Dec 2014 07:30, "David Singer" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> > On Dec 4, 2014, at 12:20 , Silvia Pfeiffer <[e-mail]>
wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 5 Dec 2014 06:25, "David Singer" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Dec 3, 2014, at 21:16 , Silvia Pfeiffer <
[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Indeed, that's why I said point 1. in David's list doesn't make
sense, since he's talking about a small company getting sued by Nokia.
> > >
> > > So, your conclusion to my question is “Ship VP8, most of you probably
won’t get sued. Good luck.  Try not to be too successful or your luck may
change.”
> >
> > Yes and it's the same answer as for h.264 and h.265 for that matter.
>
> It is not at all.  Where are the “unwilling to license” statements for
H.264?  Where is the VP8 license coverage from the larger players not in
the MPEG-LA agreement?
>
> > Only add to that the extra licence fee you heavy to pay, which is a
certainty - the risk of getting sued is uncertain and frankly quite small
compared to other risks that you take as a small company.

That can very nicely be construed as anticompetitive behaviour I would
think in my layman knowledge. It certainly doesn't look like playing fair.

> See the other thread…

Indeed, Roman certainly has more experience with law suits and still shares
my position.

Regards,
Silvia.

> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple