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

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Fri, 05 December 2014 08:37 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 292581ACDFB for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 00:37:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TYOQjKUTjPt6 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 00:37:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no (mork.alvestrand.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2::117]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4991B1ACDD6 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 00:37:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B7787C0D47 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 09:37:38 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at alvestrand.no
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mork.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4oOe5e66L6Yb for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 09:37:34 +0100 (CET)
Received: from hta-hippo.lul.corp.google.com (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:1043:1:a53a:eb60:5dc7:d291]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 112EE7C0AEB for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 09:37:34 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <54816ECD.7070601@alvestrand.no>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 09:37:33 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <547511DB.5050100@nostrum.com> <54759A4C.6020806@gmail.com> <5476092D.4010406@nostrum.com> <15EF2452-2C2C-420B-B972-C37EACE57850@apple.com> <CAHp8n2m+KMnui30_fMrwM+81UX-RUJM2ktuiZuPpRSnC7dxqcA@mail.gmail.com> <20141204014218.5955730.38619.3157@blackberry.com> <CAHp8n2=KWuTsmruz3W-90eAsptSoMYLTUVtyx9pAwcZFGXSKCQ@mail.gmail.com> <CB477124-13AD-47EA-A607-8A81AFFA379E@apple.com> <CAD5OKxu2hYtDJVbsrC-kCaZvVRoKKajvMa+deoATm9NK31fy3A@mail.gmail.com> <EF9AF89F-C72E-4D07-8F98-FE584C0FDE03@apple.com> <5480C531.5050104@bbs.darktech.org> <0C44FAD4-08C9-43FE-84BE-3B09C993443F@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <0C44FAD4-08C9-43FE-84BE-3B09C993443F@apple.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/mxJQfJiZdGuIIBxCf4cntHXm-e4
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 08:37:41 -0000

On 12/04/2014 11:21 PM, David Singer wrote:
>> On Dec 4, 2014, at 12:33 , cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:
>>
>> A formal "unwilling to license" without any factual information to back it up is practically meaningless.
> They supply a (long) list of actual patents. That is quite a bit of factual information.  (Rather too much for some people, and not enough for others, I suspect; a lot of work to read them, and not specific reasons why they think those patents apply.  But you take what you can get, and the formal process only asks for the patent numbers.)

Just to be precise:

The statement made by Nokia in MPEG does not cite patent numbers.
The statement made by Nokia in the IETF does cite patent numbers (thank 
you, Nokia!)
Neither statement explains which part of the VP8 specification the 
patents apply to.

And, of course, neither statement can compel anyone to come to the 
conclusion that the patent is a) valid, and b) applies to VP8 - that is 
a matter for each participant's legal analysis, which the industry 
participants have a long tradition of not sharing publicly (there are 
probably good reasons for that).


>
>> What is the legal difference between a company that does that and a company who sues using a previously-undeclared H.264 IPR?
> Well, in one case you were put on formal notice, and in the other, it was a situation you were previously unaware of. IANAL but I think this makes a difference.
>
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb