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

Lorenzo Miniero <lorenzo@meetecho.com> Thu, 04 December 2014 15:51 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@meetecho.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B43631AD3BB for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 07:51:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.02
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.02 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bkQT4hXsT8m2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 07:51:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpcmd01217.aruba.it (smtpcmd01217.aruba.it [62.149.158.217]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8C961AD46E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 07:50:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lminiero ([95.247.193.79]) by smtpcmd01.ad.aruba.it with bizsmtp id PTqc1p00o1jExjz01TqcH6; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 16:50:37 +0100
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 16:50:36 +0100
From: Lorenzo Miniero <lorenzo@meetecho.com>
To: Andrew Allen <aallen@blackberry.com>
Message-ID: <20141204165036.58efd995@lminiero>
In-Reply-To: <20141204154326.5955730.32803.3228@blackberry.com>
References: <547511DB.5050100@nostrum.com> <54759A4C.6020806@gmail.com> <5476092D.4010406@nostrum.com> <15EF2452-2C2C-420B-B972-C37EACE57850@apple.com> <CAHp8n2m+KMnui30_fMrwM+81UX-RUJM2ktuiZuPpRSnC7dxqcA@mail.gmail.com> <20141204014218.5955730.38619.3157@blackberry.com> <CAHp8n2=KWuTsmruz3W-90eAsptSoMYLTUVtyx9pAwcZFGXSKCQ@mail.gmail.com> <20141204154326.5955730.32803.3228@blackberry.com>
Organization: Meetecho
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.2 (GTK+ 2.24.19; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/xinIRqXCruUKtAA20mwtwr3qUyw
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 15:51:42 -0000

On Thu, 4 Dec 2014 15:43:28 +0000
Andrew Allen <aallen@blackberry.com> wrote:

> Silvia
> 
> I think the risk for small companies is if they suddenly have a
> successful product and have revenue that they then become a target.
> Plenty of cash flow to go after without the experience and resources
> to fight off the lawsuit.
> 


Forcing H.264 only on small fishes like us instead will remove the risk
of having a successful product entirely, as we wouldn't be able to
afford it. I guess we should be grateful.

L.


> My point was the fact that small companies may have implemented VP8
> without yet becoming engaged in a lawsuit does not prove  that VP8 is
> RF.
> 
> Andrew
> 
> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
> From: Silvia Pfeiffer
> Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 23:17
> To: Andrew Allen
> Cc: David Singer; rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI
> (again, still, sorry)
> 
> 
> Indeed, that's why I said point 1. in David's list doesn't make
> sense, since he's talking about a small company getting sued by
> Nokia. S.
> 
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Andrew Allen
> <aallen@blackberry.com<mailto:aallen@blackberry.com>> wrote: Silvia
> 
> It  is not usually the small companies that get sued in patent cases.
> Its companies with assets and significant revenues that get the
> lawsuits.
> 
> Nobody sues the  penniless! - thats like suing the homeless!
> 
> Andrew
> 
> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
> From: Silvia Pfeiffer
> Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 19:28
> To: David Singer
> Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI
> (again, still, sorry)
> 
> 
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 5:33 AM, David Singer
> <singer@apple.com<mailto:singer@apple.com>> wrote:
> > As I understand it, the recent face to face meeting decided to
> > draft the requirement that WebRTC browsers be required to implement
> > both VP8 and H.264, and get feedback on this, on the list.
> >
> > This is some feedback.
> >
> >
> >
> > I’d like to point out that this could easily place companies in an
> > impossible position.
> >
> > Consider: it is not uncommon for IPR owners to grant a license
> > (often free) only to ‘conforming implementations’. (A common
> > rationale is that they want to use their IPR to bring convergence
> > and interoperability to the industry).  Let’s hypothesize that this
> > happens, now or in future, from Company X, for some IPR in the
> > WebRTC specifications.
> >
> > Consider also: we have an “unwilling to license” statement from
> > Nokia on VP8, on the formal record (and including a long list of
> > patents).
> >
> > Consider finally: a small company for whom WebRTC is important.
> >
> >
> >
> > Let’s look at the choices:
> >
> > 1.  Follow the mandate, implement VP8, and risk a ruinous lawsuit
> > from Nokia.
> >
> > 2.  Reject the mandate, do not implement VP8, and be formally
> > therefore not conformant and therefore not in receipt of a license
> > from company X; risk a ruinous lawsuit from X.
> >
> > 3.  Do not implement WebRTC, and risk a ruinous loss of relevance.
> 
> 
> I don't see the risk of 1. having changed because of the IETF's
> statement. Plenty of small companies are already doing 1. and have had
> to risk getting sued by Nokia at this point in time already. In fact,
> it's a risk that small companies always have to deal with since there
> is so much patented technology around that you invariable will step on
> something. I doubt very much that the IETF's decision has any impact
> on small business' risk in that space at all.
> 
> 
> > I do not think that the IETF should be placing anyone into the
> > position of having three extremely unpalatable choices.
> 
> For a small company in the WebRTC space, 3. is a non-choice. 2. Is
> more of a business decision than an IP decision - which market are you
> trying to address? Are you trying to be interoperable with (current)
> browsers - then implement VP8. Are you trying to be interoperable with
> legacy devices - then implement H.264 (and probably even H.263).
> 
> If you are trying to argue for a large company, the situation changes.
> However, as a large company, you tend to have an existing portfolio of
> patents. You're already playing the game of patents. As long as your
> hypothetical "IPR owners to grant a license only to ‘conforming
> implementations’" doesn't happen, you are free to choose 2. and avoid
> Nokia.
> 
> As for the threat in your option 2. - I can only see Google with IPR
> around VP8. Now, Google's IPR statement on WebM codecs, which includes
> VP8 and VP9 currently states: "Google hereby grants to you a
> perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free,
> irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license"
> http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/
> The word "perpetual" implies (to my non-lawyer eyes) that they can't
> suddenly change this to mean "only if you are conformant to the
> standard". So you can't be referring to such a risk associated with
> VP8 being created by Google. I don't know which other company you
> would want to be afraid of for your hypothetical threat in 2. Could
> you clarify?
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
> Silvia.
> 
> 
> > (Yes, I am aware that #2 is ‘unlikely’, but one day someone will
> > decide that the “only to conformant implementations” clause needs
> > to be real and enforced, and will do this; our hypothetical small
> > company might prefer not to be the example case.)
> >
> > (I use a small company as the example, because for them the risk is
> > bankruptcy, but of course no-one likes to step into the path of
> > trouble even if they have the resources to weather it.)
> >
> > Dave Singer
> >
> > singer@mac.com<mailto:singer@mac.com>
> >
> > David Singer
> > Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtcweb mailing list
> > rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>