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

[Lorenzo Miniero <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, 4 Dec 2014 15:43:28 +0000
Andrew Allen <[e-mail]> 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; [e-mail]
> 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
> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI
> (again, still, sorry)
> 
> 
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 5:33 AM, David Singer
> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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
> >
> > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> >
> > David Singer
> > Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtcweb mailing list
> > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>