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

cowwoc <> Thu, 04 December 2014 20:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3412A1A1DE2 for <>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 12:34:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m_7Q55f7_fvo for <>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 12:34:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6E1C1A1BFC for <>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 12:34:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id l13so20697379iga.9 for <>; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 12:34:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=P9qzlHfk+NTn8dJnam2Gg4Ygn1WbgW6KD+azbX/iHyU=; b=TnZqlkLFjC9OAQzUAkNpMwoXIxREHa83rZUV5V5UuBkKOMJ58BwRnELghpq4Cce1AC XRr9kyCVGzCIM2Kpbqry8VQ1k0stQ3u8LTBdhJ29BG75NpWrIDcQUllqOG/okNWCgceS iXRD6jnJKRFDmBth0zPW7QBEN1Ub6OgHIowg0+I9RtFcWX+tHLLwB207E2734wVBLawo Ti7n74YzCjCUi7W/efMUWeieWO1wKGCBtuU8vI/BuD25krk7ZWd9W1LP3GAHTlhCg+lL L+zhba2se7NjfhKsjz35rf8nchNKZNrJHjdwcwFbKuzMFXCyRHxF4QMdJ3O4mAnQIST+ MUjQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn8KsciMkysREQ+Q/hnJSyW6SM9zW0Wwgi3Gy5wY1TR8f3acCqlh/44yAL/OYvNXNzSvVC8
X-Received: by with SMTP id op1mr123173igb.4.1417725275230; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 12:34:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id w7sm14918368iod.8.2014. for <> (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 04 Dec 2014 12:34:34 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 15:33:53 -0500
From: cowwoc <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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 20:34:58 -0000

A formal "unwilling to license" without any factual information to back 
it up is practically meaningless.

What is the legal difference between a company that does that and a 
company who sues using a previously-undeclared H.264 IPR?


On 04/12/2014 3:29 PM, David Singer wrote:
>> On Dec 4, 2014, at 12:15 , Roman Shpount <> wrote:
>> David,
>> The other answer is "Ship H.264. Most of you are going to get sued. Good luck settling." The risk associated with licensing H.264 is very high for any company who is not already part of this quagmire.
> I beg to disagree.  I am unaware of any problem from any company that has not made clear RAND declarations to the appropriate bodies, and most of those are members of MPEG-LA, so though it’s not quite a one-stop shop, it’s close.
> Not only is there a formal “unwilling to license” on the table for VP8, it was not developed by the companies active in this area, and with significant portfolios, and (as Nokia shows) they may not find themselves under  formal or moral obligation to license at all.
>> There are enough problems there to hire an IPR law firm the second you look at H.264 and hope that they are professional enough and there is enough money to settle.  I do understand that companies who are already stuck with H.264 would not want to be exposed to any additional IPR claims. There is also a little problem that if they implement VP8, they cannot sue any other VP8 implementers, or risk losing the VP8 IPR license.
> True, we would get some protection from practicing entities.
>> Being a small company, we had to go through patent law suite/settlement process several times already. Being small is not a defense against getting sued.
> Not what Silvia was hoping to hear.
>> Some IPR holders prefer to start with going after smaller players to create a large precedent base before going after larger targets. As far as possibility of being sued is concerned, the free VP8 license actually looks safer for us then the paid H.264 license. Neither offers indemnity, but, at least, VP8 license offers reciprocity.
> I think there is also some defensive suspension in the H.264 licenses, but I would have to check.
>> I do think that the current solution is the only one currently possible. If everyone implements both, then everyone would be forced to deal with the same problems.
> “We may as well all drown together” — it’s not very cheery, is it?
>> Hopefully, as a result, some sort of collective resolution would be found. I doubt anybody is happy with this decision. There are a parties who are affected by this decision who can make the situation better for everybody. If they think this decision is so bad, they know exactly what is required to make other options acceptable.
> I wish.
>> _____________
>> Roman Shpount
>> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:25 PM, David Singer <> wrote:
>>> On Dec 3, 2014, at 21:16 , Silvia Pfeiffer <> wrote:
>>> Indeed, that's why I said point 1. in David's list doesn't make sense, since he's talking about a small company getting sued by Nokia.
>> So, your conclusion to my question is “Ship VP8, most of you probably won’t get sued. Good luck.  Try not to be too successful or your luck may change.”
>> It is an answer; I don’t think it’s a good one, myself.
>> David Singer
>> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list