Re: [rtcweb] Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives -- No acceptable alternatives

Preemptive warning from EU to Nokia:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_EU_NOKIA

And here again (for the winning photo):
http://www.engadget.com/2013/12/09/ec-chief-warns-nokia-patent-troll/

On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
<silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> wrote:
> > Changing subject per chair's request.
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Engel Nyst <engel.nyst@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 12/10/2013 08:58 PM, Roman Shpount wrote:
> >>>
> >>> VP8 -- This works for me but I see that this will not work for any
> >>> company
> >>> already using H.264 or ever planning to sue Google. If you are already
> >>> using H.264, why do you want to expose yourself to additional IPR
> risks?
> >>> Google license is not acceptable to many larger companies (partially
> due
> >>> to
> >>> this license being automatically revoked if you decide to sue Google
> for
> >>> reasons non related to VP8) . Fail for VP8.
>
>
> So, this should read:
> VP8 - if you are ever planning on suing anyone around VP8, you should
> refrain from using VP8 because the patent rights granted on VP8 will
> evaporate. This also implies to me that if somebody is trying to sue
> any company (including a startup) over VP8, Google's patent rights
> grant evaporates and they open themselves up for a lawsuit by Google.
> As it stands, the number of companies falling into the category of
> wanting to sue Google over VP8 seems to be 1 (Nokia with their patent
> for which they don't intend to give anyone a license). Everyone else
> can feel themselves pretty safe in knowing that if somebody sues them
> over VP8, they expose themselves to the full force of the Google
> lawyers.
>
> To me, that's more safety than H.264 or any other codec grants.
>
> Best Regards,
> Silvia.
> (IANAL)
>
> >>>
> >>
> >> I'm not sure why you say "reasons not related to VP8". VP8 additional
> >> patent grant says:
> >> "If you or your agent or exclusive licensee institute or order or agree
> to
> >> the institution of patent litigation against any entity (including a
> >> cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that this
> implementation
> >> of VP8 or any code incorporated within this implementation of VP8
> >> constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, or inducement of
> >> patent infringement, then any patent rights granted to you under this
> >> License for this implementation of VP8 shall terminate as of the date
> such
> >> litigation is filed." [1]
> >>
> >> Note "alleging that this implementation of VP8 or any code incorporated
> >> within this implementation of VP8". If the allegations are unrelated to
> VP8,
> >> they don't fall within the bounds of "this implementation of VP8" with
> what
> >> it actually contains. Am I reading this wrong?
> >>
> >
> > Thank you for this correction, this was my mistake. I actually agree with
> > your interpretation. This is one of the reasons that I do consider that
> VP8
> > actually provides better IPR protection for me as a product implementer
> then
> > H.264. On the other hand, I also can see how this provision can prevent
> > implement VP8 for some companies.
> >
> > _____________
> > Roman Shpount
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtcweb mailing list
> > rtcweb@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>