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

[Andrew Allen <[e-mail]>]

Roman

I don’t think that proves anything.

Any basic military doctrine on the tactics of ambush is going to state that you don’t go after the lead elements especially if they are the stronger armored elements that are most capable of beating back the attack – no you bide your time and wait until the follow on troops that are far less able to withstand the attack come along and then mount your assault – ripping them to shreads and thus leaving those more powerful lead elements cut off and surrounded with no path to retreat!

Andrew

From: rtcweb [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Roman Shpount
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2014 11:41 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)

There were a lot of arguments here about the Nokia IPR declaration regarding VP8. IANAL, but typically there is a very simple way to determine the validity of the IPR claim. It comes down to one simple question -- Have the party claiming IPR violation filed the law suite? If not, their claims most likely do not justify the court filing fees in their own eyes. Mozilla and Google have been shipping browsers with VP8 codec support for several years already and Nokia did not do a single thing to stop this. If Nokia is serious about their IPR claims, they should take the alleged violators to court. At least this way there is going to be a definitive decision regarding the validity of these claims.

_____________
Roman Shpount