Re: [rtcweb] ~"I'd love it if patents evaporated...If not now, when"

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 12:55 AM, John Leslie <john@jlc.net> wrote:
> Mike Linksvayer <ml@gondwanaland.com> wrote:
>>
>> I strongly support VP8 for MTI, and oppose H.264. Undecided on which
>> of both, either, or neither would be second best.
>
>    I'm _very_ glad you care which is "second best!"
>
>    I went into last week's session quite prepared to accept either, both
> or neither. I came out unwilling to support _either_ as MTI.
>
>    This is mostly because I came to understand the "cisco" postition.
>
>    (Please excuse me for assigning names to the two main positions, but
> it will make the discussion _much_ simpler.)
>
>    The "cisco" position is:
>
> - look at all the H.264 hardware out there: we must make use of it;
> - if VP8 is MTI, we'll get sued and our customers will get hassled.
>
>    The "linux" position is:
>
> - look at all the VP8 software out there: we must make use of it;
> - if H.264 is MTI, we'll get sued and our customers will get hassled.
>
>    And, alas, they're both right.
>
>    What I didn't understand before the presentations was why Cisco
> believes they'll get sued over VP8, but not H.264.
>
>    Basically H.264 has quite a consortium to slap down the likes of
> Nokia in court should they sue anyone in the consortium. This greatly
> reduces the chance of Nokia's lawyer suing.

What makes you think that? I am not aware of a requirement on MPEG-LA
to get involved in any lawsuit that involves a company suing somebody
over a patent that is part of the H.264 pool.

On the contrary: if you get sued over VP8, you will likely find that
Google has an interest to support you.

Silvia.

>    But this consortium won't lift a finger if Nokia sues Cisco over
> VP8. Cisco is a _very_ attractive target over VP8.
>
>    Thus, Cisco management would _very_much_ prefer that VP8 _not_ be
> MTI. They probably won't implement it.
>
>    Conversely, of course, "linux" management would _very_much_ prefer
> that H.264 not be MTI. They probably won't implement it.
>
>    Understanding this, I now strongly recommend against making either
> H.264 or VP8 MTI. (And I will not consent to a RFC 3929 process limited
> to choosing between them.)
>
>    This issue has dragged on long enough already. We need to start
> reading the riot act to the folks who claim we "need" either of these
> as MTI in order to have "satisfied" users.
>
>    Both H.264 and VP8 deserve "SHOULD implement" status. Neither,
> IMHO, will achieve consensus for "MUST implement" status. Yes, this
> is a sorry state to find ourselves in. But the marketplace has
> sorted out much worse problems in my memory.
>
>    And I claim that both camps are actually more likely to implement
> (or allow extensions for) the other side's codec if it is _not_ MTI,
> simply because they can back out at the first sign of lawyers.
>
>    I will not go into any details about how VP8 endpoints might talk
> to H.264 endpoints, but I'm _very_ confident ways will be found if
> we actually _publish_ an RFC saying both are "SHOULD implement".
>
>    (Surely I'm not the _only_ person who'd like to see _both_ H.264
> and VP8 legacy devices using our standard...)
>
> --
> John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb