Re: [rtcweb] Cisco to open source its H.264 implementation and absorb MPEG-LA licensing fees

[cowwoc <[e-mail]>]

On 31/10/2013 5:14 AM, David Singer wrote:
> On Oct 30, 2013, at 21:33 , cowwoc <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>      While I appreciate Cisco's huge contribution in this area, Lorenzo and Keith bring up some good points.
>>
>>      How about this approach?
>> 	• Mandate both codecs as MTI
>> 	• If either codec becomes problematic (requiring us to pay royalties) we simply drop that codec as MTI (implementation becomes optional) and searching for a replacement to add as MTI. In the meantime, we have that other codec to fall back on.
> That is, alas, not the only way a codec becomes problematic.  One can also get sued.
>
>>      With this approach we no longer have to depend on the generosity of Cisco or Google, and it reduces the incentive of patent trolls (it's harder to squeeze us for royalties when we have a fallback).

     I'm no lawyer but, my understanding is that this could happen no 
matter what codec we choose. Our goal should be to minimize the 
probability of infringement, reduce the profitability of suing, and 
provide a backup plan if we're forced to move off a codec.

     At least with this approach our liability is limited to past 
infringement. They can't blackmail us with unreasonable licensing fees 
because we can switch to the other codec without losing our business. 
This lowers the profitability of suing which reduces the chance that 
they'll sue in the first place. At least, that's my reasoning :)

Gili