Re: [rtcweb] VP8 litigation in Germany?

<Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com> Mon, 11 March 2013 15:13 UTC

Return-Path: <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5089E11E810E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 08:13:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ppp65WkgDVJM for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 08:13:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mgw-sa01.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.1.47]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E06A21F86A8 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 08:13:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh106.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.32]) by mgw-sa01.nokia.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2) with ESMTP id r2BFDErX026028; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:13:15 +0200
Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.24]) by vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:13:13 +0200
Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-042.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.2.232]) by 008-AM1MMR1-008.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.24]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.011; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:13:13 +0000
From: Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com
To: stewe@stewe.org, ted.ietf@gmail.com
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] VP8 litigation in Germany?
Thread-Index: AQHOHTdl6kb3TqdDTc2vRZKKqKDI4ZifPQ8A//+fL4CAAb2/gA==
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:13:13 +0000
Message-ID: <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7623BB32D@008-AM1MPN1-042.mgdnok.nokia.com>
References: <CA+9kkMCn2NLb2gqO43aeL33kU6nayy-xdoxvuirueE6JEJ9AcA@mail.gmail.com> <CD621D50.97BC3%stewe@stewe.org>
In-Reply-To: <CD621D50.97BC3%stewe@stewe.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [130.129.134.1]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Mar 2013 15:13:13.0991 (UTC) FILETIME=[F3704170:01CE1E6A]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] VP8 litigation in Germany?
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:13:22 -0000

Hi,

>Second, remember that H.264 is a RAND standard and Nokia is undoubtedly
>bound to their RAND commitment to the ITU.  Insofar, I very much doubt that
>they could get away with charging non-RAND rates or doing other unpleasant
>things.  For VP8, as not being a standard under RAND, there is no such a
>restricting framework in place, AFAIK.

Stephan is correct. All Nokia's H.264 related IPR is bound to RAND commitments. There is no unclarity about that. 

VP8 is a different case. 

Markus 


>-----Original Message-----
>From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>Of ext Stephan Wenger
>Sent: 10 March, 2013 20:33
>To: Ted Hardie
>Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [rtcweb] VP8 litigation in Germany?
>
>Hi Ted,
>
>On 3.10.2013 11:19 , "Ted Hardie" <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>
>wrote:
>>> One other data point: Mr. Mueller is correct in that Nokia is not a
>>>member  of the H.264 pool.  Nor are they members in any other video
>>>coding related  patent pool that I'm aware of, despite IMO having one
>>>of the strongest video  coding research teams in the industry (I was
>>>part of that myself, a while  ago).
>>
>>Hi Stephan,
>>
>>So, this seems to me to imply that any Nokia IPR on either H.264 or
>>VP8 is not part of any established patent pool and thus is not publicly
>>in the "market" of which you have previously spoken.  If that is the
>>case, it would seem to be an equally unknown factor for an
>>implementer of either.   To put this slightly different, even if Mr.
>>Mueller were correct, the additional context seems to result in this
>>being null data for our particular working group decision.
>
>No, I don't think that this is correct, for at least two reasons.
>
>First, if we were adopting a tit for tat approach, I could argue that this lawsuit
>counterbalances the H.264 related lawsuit(s) (there is only one critical left
>AFAIR, which is Motorola/Microsoft) that has created so much noise here in
>the past.  You can get sued over H.264 (interlace frame/field adaptivity for
>example), but you can equally get sued over VP8 (motion vector coding
>technology for example, if I remember correctly).
>
>Second, remember that H.264 is a RAND standard and Nokia is undoubtedly
>bound to their RAND commitment to the ITU.  Insofar, I very much doubt that
>they could get away with charging non-RAND rates or doing other unpleasant
>things.  For VP8, as not being a standard under RAND, there is no such a
>restricting framework in place, AFAIK.
>
>The second aspect may make little difference to those whose business model
>discourages them from paying royalties (which I do not consider a sustainable
>business model in this field, however, others have other opinions including a
>few folks who know their stuff in this field).
>However, the first aspect does.
>
>>
>>regards,
>>
>>Ted Hardie
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>rtcweb@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb