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

Andrew Allen <> Thu, 04 December 2014 01:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C36C1A1A3C for <>; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 17:11:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Hf5Ke-W4J3pk for <>; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 17:11:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A49BC1A1BF2 for <>; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 17:11:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 03 Dec 2014 20:10:57 -0500
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 20:10:57 -0500
Received: from ([fe80::49cb:316:205b:d7d9]) by ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 20:10:56 -0500
From: Andrew Allen <>
To: Harald Alvestrand <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)
Thread-Index: AQHQDyew2za5sQikUES+QP80tOoCX5x+j7gAgAAQSIw=
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 01:10:56 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>, <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-CA
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_201412040110555955730931843148blackberrycom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)
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: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 01:11:06 -0000


I think it could be also characterized less of. Those in favor of the solution had evaluates the risks and were reedy to make the decision based on that evaluation to instead. Many of those now in favor had defined  a way forward where their implementations didn't need to expose them to the risks thus minimizing the voice of those that would have to take the risk!

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
From: Harald Alvestrand
Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 13:13
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)

On 12/03/2014 07:33 PM, David Singer wrote:
> As I understand it, the recent face to face meeting decided to draft the requirement that WebRTC browsers be required to implement both VP8 and H.264, and get feedback on this, on the list.
> This is some feedback.
> I’d like to point out that this could easily place companies in an impossible position.
> Consider: it is not uncommon for IPR owners to grant a license (often free) only to ‘conforming implementations’. (A common rationale is that they want to use their IPR to bring convergence and interoperability to the industry).  Let’s hypothesize that this happens, now or in future, from Company X, for some IPR in the WebRTC specifications.

I'm having trouble following the logic here. What technology are you
imagining that Company X will put IPR claims on, and what conformance do
you imagine that it would require?

(We could also consider the case of someone, call it Company G, claiming
IPR on some non-codec part of WebRTC technology and refusing to license
it at all. We can discuss the relative chances of the two things happening.)

> Consider also: we have an “unwilling to license” statement from Nokia on VP8, on the formal record (and including a long list of patents).
> Consider finally: a small company for whom WebRTC is important.
> Let’s look at the choices:
> 1.  Follow the mandate, implement VP8, and risk a ruinous lawsuit from Nokia.
> 2.  Reject the mandate, do not implement VP8, and be formally therefore not conformant and therefore not in receipt of a license from company X; risk a ruinous lawsuit from X.
> 3.  Do not implement WebRTC, and risk a ruinous loss of relevance.
> I do not think that the IETF should be placing anyone into the position of having three extremely unpalatable choices.
If Company G does its thing, both 1 and 2 risk a ruinous lawsuit from
Company G.
> (Yes, I am aware that #2 is ‘unlikely’, but one day someone will decide that the “only to conformant implementations” clause needs to be real and enforced, and will do this; our hypothetical small company might prefer not to be the example case.)
> (I use a small company as the example, because for them the risk is bankruptcy, but of course no-one likes to step into the path of trouble even if they have the resources to weather it.)

My impression from the meeting was that the people speaking in favour of
the proposed solution had evaluated the risks, and were ready to make a
decision based on their evaluation.


> Dave Singer
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list

rtcweb mailing list