Re: [rtcweb] Notification for draft-benham-rtcweb-vp8litigation-00.txt

"Timothy B. Terriberry" <> Tue, 28 October 2014 00:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 815691A86F7 for <>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 17:15:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.888
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HBXPgbLXvLvb for <>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 17:15:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03C031A8547 for <>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 17:15:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D1156F232C for <>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 17:15:38 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 17:15:38 -0700
From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.26
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "" <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Notification for draft-benham-rtcweb-vp8litigation-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 00:15:43 -0000

David Benham (dbenham) wrote:
>     There remains a great deal of confusion in the industry about the
>     state of patent litigation and IPR disclosures around VP8. To

Thanks for compiling this report, David. Hopefully this can avoid 
wasting time on arguments about what should be publicly documented 
facts. I just wanted to comment that your use of the acronym "FRAND" to 
mean "Free under Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory" terms may lead to 
some confusion, as there is already an existing expansion in common use, 
namely "Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory". The term doesn't 
appear in the Duane Morris report you cite (except in a citation, where 
I believe it is intended to refer to the latter expansion, not the former).

I've been looking for a good term to use for technology which is covered 
by patents, but for which royalty-free licenses with open-source 
compatible terms exist. "Royalty-Free" doesn't quite fit the bill, as 
there are examples of royalty-free licenses which would preclude an 
open-source implementation [1]. "Patent-free" is clearly wrong and 
"patent-unencumbered", while better, might still be misleading (however, 
it's the best I've been able to think of).

If someone can think of a better way to describe this class of licenses, 
I am all ears. RFLWOSCT doesn't quite roll off the tongue.

[1] Clause 2.5 (among others) of 
being one example.