Re: [rtcweb] WebVC licensing issues (Re: Congratuiations on the Cisco announcement - but we still prefer VP8)

[David Singer <[e-mail]>]

On Nov 8, 2013, at 10:01 , Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Changing the subject, since this is a different topic to where we started the thread.
> It is also perhaps somewhat irrelevant to the rtcweb mailing list.
> 
> The public statement is the public statement of Motorola Mobility, just like the Microsoft public statement (also type 2) is the public statement of Microsoft.
> 
> If you want more information than what's given in the statement, you have to ask the persons who made the statement.
> Which is not me - that's really all I was saying.
> 
> (One of the things I've been surprised about in the discussions of WebVC is that the proponents have not seemed to have any plan to resolve the issue of the Type 2 filings they have received. I'm not sure what such a plan would consist of - but my inability to see how we could resolve this issue is a major reason why I don't have a strong belief that this project can actually achieve its stated goals.)

The plan of record, as of the previous meeting, was to consider filings made by the close of the DIS ballot, which was just a week or two ago.  Then we try to get the pipeline to deliver us all the statements and their details (don't ask why that is hard, it beats me), and then we consider where we are.

Plumbers are at work trying to get the data out of the pipeline, into the database, and so on.

Whether the non-type-1 statements can be resolved, how many there are, and so on, is obviously a question to be answered.  That was part of the plan at inception and has not been discussed since, so you may not have been around for the discussion.

(The Microsoft statement is very similar to a couple of others, which are formally type-2 but would go to type-1 -- RF -- if all others do the same).

> 
>           Harald
> 
> 
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 1:18 AM, David Singer <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On Nov 8, 2013, at 6:27 , Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > Krasimir, if you want to discuss licenses with the Motorola Mobility lawyers, the contact details are in the filing.
> 
> Is there anything ambiguous or unclear that would warrant discussion?  The statement seems fairly straightforward.  And generally, in the standards bodies we work on what is formally said, not what we might learn in hypothetical side-conversations.
> 
> > My impression when I asked them to file something was that the status of that project didn't even enter into consideration when they decided how to respond - but I'm not going to speak for them. If you want to know, call them.
> 
> It's not Krasimir who wants to know, it's all of us.  The public statement is presumed to be your public statement.
> 
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> 
> 

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.