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

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

On 12/04/2014 11:21 PM, David Singer wrote:
>> On Dec 4, 2014, at 12:33 , cowwoc <[e-mail]> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb