Re: [rtcweb] VP8 litigation in Germany?

[Ron <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 07:19:25PM +0000, Stephan Wenger wrote:
> On 3.10.2013 11:50 , "Ted Hardie" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >A potential non-RAND response seems to be entirely a supposition; you
> >could equally suppose that they would make their licenses royalty
> >free, should they have any applicable to VP8, based on the PR value of
> >contributing to the existence of a more vibrant ecosystem.
> 
> Risk assessment necessarily deals with probabilities.  How high is the
> chance that an aggressive IP enforcer would ask for non RAND terms
> (billions in royalty, injunction, whatnot), RAND terms, or give in for
> good, when litigation has been initiated and the IP enforcer is not bound
> to RAND terms?  Rhetoric question.

Yeah, that would be like Google saying "Ok guys we have a really big
chequebook here, what's it going to cost for you to quit with the FUD?"

And MPEG-LA saying "oh, ah ... hmm.  Well ... we don't want your money
(tell them we've already got one), so we'll just excuse ourselves here
from any further involvement and let you folks talk among yourselves" ...

"Oh, and you're welcome to say in the press release that we agree none
of this indicates any of the patents actually read on your technology."

Never going to happen in our lifetimes, right?  What are the chances?
(Genuine question for anyone who fancies themselves a bookmaker)


  Ron

  - who still suspects his previous theory of the actual 'arrangement'
    details is far closer to the truth indicated by the known facts.