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

Matthew Kaufman <> Tue, 11 November 2014 05:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 213CE1AD553 for <>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 21:51:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LBKcsqOj7J69 for <>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 21:51:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:826a:d2::3]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A9F91AD546 for <>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 21:51:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1B16E4645CE; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 21:51:27 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 21:51:26 -0800
From: Matthew Kaufman <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Roman Shpount <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030402060502000709040006"
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal
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, 11 Nov 2014 05:51:29 -0000

On 11/10/2014 9:47 PM, Roman Shpount wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 12:29 AM, Matthew Kaufman < 
> <>> wrote:
>     On 11/10/2014 4:25 PM, Roman Shpount wrote:
>>     On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Matthew Kaufman
>>     < <>> 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

I was giving examples like "royalty-free option for H.264 MPEG-LA" or 
"IP risk indemnification from Google" as things that would indicate real 
change in the IPR landscape, which is one of the major things driving 
the positions of the browser makers. Neither has happened. They're both 
equivalently "wishful thinking" at this point. If and when something 
changes, we should discuss what that means. Until then, I ask again: 
what's changed?

Matthew Kaufman