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

Ron <> Thu, 04 December 2014 14:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 391541AD3BB for <>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 06:51:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oGxscxLjwhEJ for <>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 06:51:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A00C41A1B10 for <>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 06:51:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (HELO mailservice.shelbyville.oz) ([]) by with ESMTP; 05 Dec 2014 01:21:51 +1030
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by mailservice.shelbyville.oz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27644FFEE9 for <>; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 01:21:39 +1030 (CST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mailservice.shelbyville.oz
Received: from mailservice.shelbyville.oz ([]) by localhost (mailservice.shelbyville.oz []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id YICSjDMqFLVg for <>; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 01:21:38 +1030 (CST)
Received: from hex.shelbyville.oz (hex.shelbyville.oz []) by mailservice.shelbyville.oz (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9943FF88C for <>; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 01:21:38 +1030 (CST)
Received: by hex.shelbyville.oz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id AE47780470; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 01:21:38 +1030 (ACDT)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 01:21:38 +1030
From: Ron <>
Message-ID: <20141204145138.GH10449@hex.shelbyville.oz>
References: <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 14:51:55 -0000

On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 10:33:04AM -0800, David Singer wrote:
> 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.

This seems more like a hypothetical small strawman than a situation
that any *real* small company has expressed to this group.

Your concern for small operators is heartwarming, but I think if you
consult the list archives to see what such people have actually said
for themselves, the only ruinous legal barrier that Nokia appears to
have them worried about is the IPR it holds on H.264 that is outside
the pool MPEG-LA operates, with no clear guarantee of its terms.

And we *still* don't have an IPR statement from them about this.
How many times should we need to ask them to respect the IETF process?

Fear of VP8 here would appear to be directly proportional to something
much simpler than what you claim.

If someone would like to graph "Number of H.264 patents held" vs
"Fear of VP8 being MTI", I think you'll find the real correlation
that you're grasping for here to be fairly obvious.