Re: [rtcweb] Current H.264 licensing practice

[Florian Weimer <[e-mail]>]

* David Benham:

> Extrapolating from an EULA what one's rtcweb dev/distribution license
> rights is likely way off base.

I disagree, considering the broad overlap between EULAs from different
vendors and very different product categories.

> You can read the MPEG-LA's FAQ here ...
> http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Documents/AVC_TermsSummary.pdf
> Note the graphic and text for "(b) sublicenses" on pages 2 and 3.

That document seems to date from 2004 or 2005, despite the metadata
timestamp.  The Internet was quite different then.  Internet video
conferencing existed, but was difficult to get to work.  Mobile
Internet used EDGE, with bandwidths less 500 kbps.

> The commercial royalties described are targeted at Service Providers of
> on-demand titles and/or broadcast TV over the Internet with greater 100K
> subscribers and great remuneration (aka, subscription or ad revenue).
> Think the likes of Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc, using the video tag and
> *not* the support-desk in your example or commercial, real-time
> communications.

Uhm, that's not how patent licensing works.  You need a license even
if the patent owner has no ready-made offering that fits your
particular needs.