Subject: [rtcweb] Google VP8 Patent Grant for third parties [Was Re:Proposal for H.263 baseline codec]

From: Serge Lachapelle <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 19:54:56 +0200

*[Forking the thread]*
*
*
*Hello folks,*

Google confirms that the VP8 patent grant applies to both third-party
hardware and software implementations of VP8.
*
*
*Google encourages the community to create hardware implementations of VP8,
and has recently blogged about a number of new hardware implementations on
the WebM blog (
http://blog.webmproject.org/2012/03/webm-gaining-momentum-in-hardware.html).
*
*
*
*Google is quite proud of what the community has done with VP8 and looks
forward to seeing more implementations of VP8 in both hardware and
software. *
*
*
*Regards,*
*
*
*/Serge Lachapelle, Google, Stockholm*

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 16:53, Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
>
> On 3.29.2012 16:24 , "Basil Mohamed Gohar" <[email-masked]>
> wrote:
>
> >On 03/29/2012 10:20 AM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
> >> The second part of your sentence may or may not be true, depending on
> >>your
> >> relationship with google, your willingness to use the webm
> >>implementation
> >> in unchanged form, and other factors.  Please see the webm license
> >> conditions, which AFAIK can be found here:
> >> http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/
> >Correct.  I think you are referring to this part, explicitly:
> >> If you or your agent or exclusive licensee institute or order or agree
> >> to the institution of patent litigation against any entity (including
> >> a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that this
> >> implementation of VP8 or any code incorporated within this
> >> implementation of VP8 constitutes direct or contributory patent
> >> infringement, or inducement of patent infringement, then any patent
> >> rights granted to you under this License for this implementation of
> >> VP8 shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
> >Perhaps I assumed that that is a very reasonable part of the license.
> >That is, if you are suing someone alleging a patent infringement within
> >VP8, you are no longer granted the license to use VP8's patented
> >technologies that Google owns.
>
> Yes, that's one issue.  Call it personal preference for different type of
> reciprocity conditions :-)  (I could rant about it for hours, but let's
> continue to pretend that this is mostly a technical mailing list)
>
> The other issue, though (the fact that the license grant extends only to
> the VP8 implementation as provided by google, and does not extent to
> derivative works such as hardware implementations) should be moderately
> alarming even for an open source person.  With respect to this clause, I
> will note that I criticized the licensing conditions in private and in
> public (IETF mike) several times, months ago, and nothing happened.
> Suggests to me one of three things: (1) google is a large company and
> decisions take time, or (2) google's legal is currently occupied with
> other stuff, or (3) that the choice of language is intentional, and
> intended to prevent forks.  Take your pick.
> Stephan
>
> >_______________________________________________
> >rtcweb mailing list
> >[email-masked]
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> Google Sweden AB | Kungsbron 2, SE-111 22 Stockholm | Org. nr. 556656-6880
>
> Apparently, this footer is required in Europe. Apologies. This email may
> be confidential or privileged.  If you received this communication by
> mistake, please don't forward it to anyone else,please erase all copies and
> attachments, and please let me know that it went to the wrong person.
>  Thanks.
>  <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>

-- 
Serge Lachapelle | Product Manager | [email-masked] | +46 732 01 22 32

-- 
Serge Lachapelle | Product Manager | [email-masked] | +46 732 01 22 32
Google Sweden AB | Kungsbron 2, SE-111 22 Stockholm | Org. nr. 556656-6880

Apparently, this footer is required in Europe. Apologies. This email may be
confidential or privileged.  If you received this communication by mistake,
please don't forward it to anyone else,please erase all copies and
attachments, and please let me know that it went to the wrong person.
 Thanks.

---

From: Basil Mohamed Gohar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 14:37:15 -0400

Serge,

Thank you very much for this.  To go a step forward, I would encourage
that this be made more legally obvious, because a reference to a single
e-mail on an "obscure" mailing list (relative to what most people are
familiar with) will not provide the deepest levels of assurance to those
not actively involved with the WebRTC project.

I would humbly request an unambiguous statement somewhere on the WebM
project website that makes this assertion clear, because what is
publicly available is, at the very least, ambiguous, and at the worst,
"evidence of Google's nefarious scheme to pounce on hardware
implementers after wide adoption".

On 04/03/2012 01:54 PM, Serge Lachapelle wrote:
> *Google encourages the community to create hardware implementations of
> VP8, and has recently blogged about a number of new hardware
> implementations on the WebM blog (
> http://blog.webmproject.org/2012/03/webm-gaining-momentum-in-hardware.html
> ). *
> *
> *
> *Google is quite proud of what the community has done with VP8 and
> looks forward to seeing more implementations of VP8 in both hardware
> and software. *
> *
> *
> *Regards,*
> *
> *
> */Serge Lachapelle,
> Google, Stockholm*
>
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 16:53, Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On 3.29.2012 16:24 , "Basil Mohamed Gohar"
>     <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
>     wrote:
>
>     >[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     Apparently, this footer is required in Europe. Apologies. This
>     email may be confidential or privileged.  If you received this
>     communication by mistake, please don't forward it to anyone
>     else,please erase all copies and attachments, and please let me
>     know that it went to the wrong person.  Thanks.
> Serge Lachapelle | Product Manager | [email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]> | +46 732 01 22 32
>
>
> -- 
> Serge Lachapelle | Product Manager | [email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]> | +46 732 01 22 32
> Apparently, this footer is required in Europe. Apologies. This email
> may be confidential or privileged.  If you received this communication
> by mistake, please don't forward it to anyone else,please erase all
> copies and attachments, and please let me know that it went to the
> wrong person.  Thanks.
>
>

-- 
Libre Video
http://librevideo.org

---

From: "Paul E. Jones" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 22:45:56 -0400

Will Google indemnify all implementers against any IPR claims?  Do that, and
I think the debate would be over.

Paul

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Serge Lachapelle
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 1:55 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [rtcweb] Google VP8 Patent Grant for third parties [Was Re:Proposal
for H.263 baseline codec]

[Forking the thread]

Hello folks,

Google encourages the community to create hardware implementations of VP8,
and has recently blogged about a number of new hardware implementations on
the WebM blog (
http://blog.webmproject.org/2012/03/webm-gaining-momentum-in-hardware.html
). 

Google is quite proud of what the community has done with VP8 and looks
forward to seeing more implementations of VP8 in both hardware and software.

Regards,

/Serge Lachapelle, Google, Stockholm

 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb> Google Sweden AB | Kungsbron
2, SE-111 22 Stockholm | Org. nr. 556656-6880 

 

 

--

---

From: Basil Mohamed Gohar <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 00:24:58 -0400

While it would be great if such a thing were possible, even the MPEG-LA 
does not indemnify users of H.264 from any IPR claims.  Expecting Google 
to do so is unreasonable.  Moreover, there are other practical issues 
such as NDAs that patent litigation frequently invokes that would still 
allow someone to be sued even if Google did offer indemnification.

The strongest thing Google can do, I think, is what they already do in 
relation to nullifying all grants to their patents that cover VP8 should 
someone engage in a lawsuit against Google.  The software patent 
landscape, sadly, does not leave many more options on the table.  
Perhaps someone more familiar with patent law can expand and/or correct 
what I've said.

It should go without saying that IANAL.

-- 
Libre Video
http://librevideo.org

On 04/03/2012 10:45 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote:
>
> Will Google indemnify all implementers against any IPR claims?  Do 
> that, and I think the debate would be over.
>
> Paul
>
> *From:[email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] *On 
> Behalf Of *Serge Lachapelle
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 03, 2012 1:55 PM
> *To:* [email-masked]
> *Subject:* [rtcweb] Google VP8 Patent Grant for third parties [Was 
> Re:Proposal for H.263 baseline codec]
>
> [Forking the thread]
>
> Hello folks,
>
>
> Google encourages the community to create hardware implementations of 
> Google is quite proud of what the community has done with VP8 and 
> and software.
> On 3.29.2012 16:24 , "Basil Mohamed Gohar" <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>>
> wrote:
>
>

---

From: "Paul E. Jones" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 01:23:34 -0400

Basil,

I disagree.  If VP8 is believed so strongly to be free of any IPR, then
Google could boldly indemnify a company.  Personally, I have my doubts that
it is.

MPEG-LA is not in the business of indemnifying people, nor do I believe they
would make a claim that H.264 is not covered by another patent holder.  That
said, I do believe that there is a significantly increased probability that
all patent holders either license through MPEG-LA or have listed IPR on
H.264 in the ITU's IPR database.

I would have a high degree of confidence that I could identify all H.264 IPR
holders.  I have no degree of confidence I could do the same for VP8.

Paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of Basil Mohamed Gohar
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 12:25 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Google VP8 Patent Grant for third parties [Was
> to do so is unreasonable.  Moreover, there are other practical issues such
> as NDAs that patent litigation frequently invokes that would still allow
> someone to be sued even if Google did offer indemnification.
>

---

From: Basil Mohamed Gohar <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 09:42:12 -0400

Paul,

What you are asking for is something no one in the media industry offers
for something comparable.  As was pointed out elsewhere on this list,
even the H.264 standard has been updated to include additional patents
over time deemed to be "essential".  One could be non-infringing in the
past and suddenly find yourself infringing.

I don't know what all of Google's public statements about VP8 IPR status
are, but we know that the patents they own are granted via the license,
and we know that a public call for the formation of a patent pool over a
year ago has yielded not even a follow-up announcement from MPEG-LA.

Furthermore, not a single patent has been brought forward publicly as
being even remotely doubtful as to its application to VP8.

So, until there is some actual evidence that there is an IPR threat,
then with all due respect, statements such as yours must be classified
as spreading FUD, because they serve to drive adoption away from a free,
open, unencumbered standard to one that is on baseless claims.

-- 
Libre Video
http://librevideo.org

---

From: Serge Lachapelle <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 20:44:34 +0200

Thank you for your feedback Basil. Google posted this as a result:

http://www.webmproject.org/about/faq/#does-the-vp8-patent-grant-also-extend-to-hardware-implementations

/Serge

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 20:37, Basil Mohamed Gohar <[email-masked]

---

From: Basil Mohamed Gohar <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 14:53:44 -0400

Serge,

Thank you very much for this much-needed, public clarification.  Just
one more bit of FUD knocked down!

-- 
Libre Video
http://librevideo.org

On 04/04/2012 02:44 PM, Serge Lachapelle wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 20:37, Basil Mohamed Gohar
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     Serge,
>
>     <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     > <mailto:[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>> wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >     <[email-masked]
>     <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     <mailto:[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>>
>     >     wrote:
>     >
>     >     >That is, if you are suing someone alleging a patent
>     infringement
>     >     within
>     >     Yes, that's one issue.  Call it personal preference for
>     different
>     >     type of
>     >     reciprocity conditions :-)  (I could rant about it for
>     hours, but
>     >     let's
>     <mailto:[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
>     <mailto:[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
>     <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     > <mailto:[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> | +46 732
>     01 22 32 <tel:%2B46%20732%2001%2022%2032>
>     >
>     >
>     > --
>     <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     > <mailto:[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> | +46 732
>     01 22 32 <tel:%2B46%20732%2001%2022%2032>

-- 
Libre Video
http://librevideo.org

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 00:08:16 +0200

On 04/04/2012 07:23 AM, Paul E. Jones wrote:
> holders.
Question .... how would you do that?
I'm genuinely curious. The subject has come up in other discussions, 
including in ISO in connection with the WebVC and IVC projects.

The database in question is an ISO database, not an ITU database, and 
the format is most un-database-like; it is here:

http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2122/3770791/JTC1_Patents_database.html?nodeid=3777806&vernum=-2 
<http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2122/3770791/JTC1_Patents_database.html?nodeid=3777806&vernum=-2>

---

From: "Paul E. Jones" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 02:47:34 -0400

Basil,

> for something comparable.

I know, but the reluctance to do so means that Google knows that there *may
be* IPR on VP8.  This is just the facts of life.  I believe it's extremely
important that people know and understand that nobody knows the IPR
situation with VP8.  If they did, they would offer indemnity, because there
is nothing to worry about, but nobody can.

> As was pointed out elsewhere on this list, even
> the H.264 standard has been updated to include additional patents over
> time deemed to be "essential".  One could be non-infringing in the past
> and suddenly find yourself infringing.

Indeed, but I have a significantly higher level of confidence that I can
identify all of the legitimate companies with IPR on H.264, whereas I
haven't a clue where to start (outside of Google) for VP8. 
 
> being even remotely doubtful as to its application to VP8.

If I owned IPR on VP8 (which I don't personally; can't speak for my
employer), I certainly would not tell you and I would not join a patent
pool, either.  I would wait until you adopt VP8, build it into software and
hardware products, have it massively deployed, and then I'd come along and
collect my royalties.  There is absolutely no financial incentive for an IPR
holder to join a patent pool.

H.264, on the other hand, is different.  H.264 was developed jointly by
video coding experts in ISO and ITU.  As an part of that participation, they
are requested to disclose IPR.  And, respectable companies will disclose
their IPR.   Every company participating in that work has a vested interest
in the success of H.264.  Some are looking for royalties and some are
looking for the technology to enable their products.  Thus, the formation of
the patent pool is in the best interest of all involved so that people will
adopt the technology.  While there are those not in the pool, they have
submitted IPR statements to the ITU.
 
> So, until there is some actual evidence that there is an IPR threat, then
> with all due respect, statements such as yours must be classified as
> spreading FUD, because they serve to drive adoption away from a free,

My statement is intended to spread FUD, but not maliciously; I'm trying to
be helpful.  You SHOULD be fearful of not only patent trolls, but also
legitimate companies who are not obligated to disclose their IPR and who
have a vested interest in H.264 and who will take full advantage of their
position should VP8 be widely deployed.  You SHOULD feel some level of
uncertainty about the IPR situation surrounding VP8.  And, you SHOULD doubt
any claim made that there is no IPR on VP8.

While there may be undisclosed IPR on H.264, I find it hard to believe that
there would be much, if any, at this point.  Keep in mind that H.264 is
product of the joint effort of a bunch of people who are experts in the
field.  I would be suspicious of any company not involved in the development
of H.264 claiming to have IPR, because somebody in the joint committee
probably owns that IPR.  Sure, there might be something ... something very
minor.  Perhaps.

And what if there is something that comes up?  Every company participating
in the work on H.264 would have a vested interest in disproving the claims,
particularly if whomever makes claims refuses to license or tries to demand
insane royalties.  I could imagine a stream of expert witnesses coming into
a courtroom to defend H.264.  With no vested interest in VP8, who cares if
you get sued for 50% of product revenues?

Understand, all of this commentary has nothing to do with the technical
merits of VP8 vs. H.264.  There are risks with selecting either technology.
That said, I personally have a much higher degree of confidence that I will
not get sued out of business if I were to select H.264, contact all of the
IPR holders registered in the ITU and ISO patent databases, and negotiate a
license directly (or via MPEG-LA when possible).  I have no degree of
confidence whatsoever with VP8, except that Google was kind enough to make
its IPR available at no cost.  I just don't know who else is out there, and
it might be 10 or 15 H.264 patent holders, all with an interest to exercise
their rights when the time comes.
 
Paul

---

From: "Paul E. Jones" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 03:15:58 -0400

Harald,

> > I would have a high degree of confidence that I could identify all
> > H.264 IPR holders.
> The database in question is an ISO database, not an ITU database, and the
> format is most un-database-like; it is here:
> 
> <http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2122/3770791/JTC1_Paten
> ts_database.html?nodeid=3777806&vernum=-2>

There are two databases.  One with ISO (and you have the link) and the other
is ITU:
http://www.itu.int/ipr/IPRSearch.aspx?iprtype=PS

Just enter "H.264" into the box under "Recommendation No" and hit ENTER.
There are 327 filed IPR claims.

Of course, this is not all of the IPR that may exist, but my point is that
it's highly unlikely that more exists from companies not listed given the
ITU and ISO's patent policies, participating companies' mutual desire to see
the technology succeed, etc.  Virtually every concept you can imagine that
found its way into H.264 is either prior art or new IPR introduced by
participating companies, all of which SHOULD be listed.  If a company
participated and failed to disclose IPR... that's really bad.  Not only
would the defendant be unhappy, but said IPR holder might very well be
blocked from further participation.  Something would be done.  And, they
might have a tough time arguing in court, knowing they were withholding
information and, thus, misleading the defendant who could demonstrate an
effort was made to negotiate with all IPR holders.  If I were a judge, I
would not take kindly to such subversive, destructive behavior in an
standards organization.  That leaves only patent trolls who did not
participate in the H.264 work.  There is little we can do with such entities
who, quite likely, never invented anything in H.264, but have a patent
worded just well enough to give the illusion that they invented something in
the standard.  This is an unfortunate reality in our world with all
technology.

Now, as I look at the 327 patents filed on H.264 (in the ITU database
alone), I'm left wondering... nobody in the whole world has even one on VP8
outside of On2 / Google?  I'd bet there are.  I personally would not want to
take the risk, but that's me.

Paul

---

From: Jean-Marc Valin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 11:10:20 -0400

> is nothing to worry about, but nobody can.

Personally, I would be reluctant to indemnify anyone over IPR in a paper
clip. This is the sad state of the patent system and it applies to every
piece of technology.

> haven't a clue where to start (outside of Google) for VP8. 

Obviously, that makes H.264 so much safer, right?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/29/microsoft_motorola_patent_cases/

> holder to join a patent pool.

I assume this is why we've seen all these lawsuits against Google,
Microsoft, Cisco, Apple... over their use of Vorbis and Speex, right?
Seriously, I can count at least 10 free AV codecs and none of them have
had any patent lawsuits that I'm aware of.

> submitted IPR statements to the ITU.

The best interest of a H.264 patent owner is to avoid having to
disclose, wait for adoption, and then be free to ask for a lot more than
what they would get from the patent pool. This is why I consider H.264
to be a higher risk than VP8. The current Motorola lawsuit confirms this.

Cheers,

	Jean-Marc

---

From: "Paul E. Jones" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 14:50:35 -0400

Jean-Marc,

> clip. This is the sad state of the patent system and it applies to every

Oh, I agree with you. :-)
 
> > Indeed, but I have a significantly higher level of confidence that I
> > can identify all of the legitimate companies with IPR on H.264,
> > whereas I haven't a clue where to start (outside of Google) for VP8.
> 

Motorola is a known patent holder.  So if Microsoft.  I assume Microsoft
elected to ignore Motorola's patent claims, and I assume Motorola ignored
Microsoft's patents, too, as I'm sure there would have been a reciprocity
agreement in place otherwise.  I don't know, but if you want to use H.264,
then you would have known to talk to Motorola and MS.
 
> > employer), I certainly would not tell you and I would not join a
> > patent pool, either.  I would wait until you adopt VP8, build it into
> > software and hardware products, have it massively deployed, and then
> > I'd come along and collect my royalties.  There is absolutely no
> > financial incentive for an IPR holder to join a patent pool.
> 

The "why" is unknown. It might be that a license was acquired. It might be
that patent holders do not care since the same companies are already
licensing their patents.  Perhaps the usage is not as high as other codecs,
including MP3 and G.729?  The fact there isn't a lawsuit does not mean these
are free from patents, unless the technology is so old patents are expired.
(I think that's one argument for using H.261, in spite of its small video
sizes.)
 
> The best interest of a H.264 patent owner is to avoid having to disclose,
> wait for adoption, and then be free to ask for a lot more than what they
> would get from the patent pool. This is why I consider H.264 to be a
> higher risk than VP8. The current Motorola lawsuit confirms this.

The Motorola lawsuit does not confirm this at all.  This is nothing but a
fight between those two companies, both of which were likely aware of the
others' IPR here.

You're ignoring one point I made.  Those involved in the creation of H.264
have quite likely filed IPR statements with ISO or ITU.  If some other
company were to come out of the closet on this with something that
blindsides the industry, the industry would fight it.  At the very least,
whatever bit of IPR that is claimed would have to be put into perspective
with respect to the other hundreds of patents on H.264.

H.264 has already become widely deployed.  Work is well underway on H.265
now.  So, there are patent trolls out there, right now is the time to start
filing lawsuits.  And as I said, the reputable companies would have
disclosed IPR and you'd know to talk to them.

VP8 is a technology where nobody other than Google has to answer about IPR.
BT, Oki, France Telecom, Qualcom, Nokia, Microsoft, Sony, NTT, Motorola, TI,
etc. are not obligated to make a statement, yet it would not surprise me in
the least if these companies do not have IPR.  Whether the enforce it is
another matter.  They will only if it is in their interest.

Paul

---

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 07:33:41 +1000

> then you would have known to talk to Motorola and MS.

So what's the point in having the patent pool if you have to talk to
all the individual patent owners anyway?

> including MP3 and G.729?

You might be surprised about the usage - a substantial amount of games
use Vorbis because they don't have to pay for a license. Indeed, it is
well known that Microsoft's Halo used Vorbis. For that very reason, I
doubt that any of those companies acquired a patent license from any
company claiming to own a patent on Vorbis or Speex. In fact, since
nobody has claimed to have such patents, how would you even know who
to license it from?

>  The fact there isn't a lawsuit does not mean these

Existing lawsuits are the only quantitative measure that is available
to find out about whether somebody is prepared to fight for their
patents on a technology. Even patent pools don't work for this,
apparently.

> with respect to the other hundreds of patents on H.264.

If somebody was to come out of the woodworks over VP8, I'd expect
Google to fight them. And all the other companies that have now
invested into VP8. I don't think patents mean anything when it comes
to the decision of whether to fight a patent claim or not: money
talks.

> another matter.  They will only if it is in their interest.

If they've decided to use VP8, they license makes them take choose
sides. There's no need for a patent pool to force them to take sides
(in fact, that doesn't seem to have worked for Motorola and Microsoft
anyway.

Cheers,
Silvia.

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 22:33:31 +0000

Hi,
Joining the fun again, so that Paul does not feel lonely...
Albeit at a slower pace, due to day job requirements plus splendid (and
plentiful) Sierra snow :-)
Stephan

>all the individual patent owners anyway?

The answer to this rhetoric question is twofold.  The obvious part is that
it's usually cheaper and easier to pick one license from a pool at known
and published terms than to negotiate a license with all those
rightholders outside of a pool arrangement (which, by the way, is an
option some companies have chosen).  The less obvious part is that the
percentage of patents in a pool reading on a standard is normally
substantial.  For H.264, one estimate I have heard (and that I believe
could well be realistic) is 80%.  As the terms of the pool and the number
of patents therein are known, one can calculate a "market price" for a
patent license reading on H.264.  It's not that easy for a rightholder
outside the pool to ask for royalties substantially higher than what the
pool charges (and get away with it); at least not without raising concerns
about the fairness and reasonableness of said rightholder.  Which one of
the more important aspects of what currently happens in the antitrust
activity going on in Europe in the Moto/MS case.  As I have said in the
meeting: FRAND has recently gotten teeth.  I firmly believe so.

>nobody has claimed to have such patents, how would you even know who

The vast majority of patent disputes never see a courtroom and never get
published.  A rightholder sends a letter alleging infringement, the
parties meet, a license is being negotiated (the terms may or may not
include a monetary component), and that's the end of it.  Outside of
certain ideologically restricted circles, pragmatic solutions can be found
rather easily in many cases.

>>>disclose,

Paul is correct here.  Motorola did not come out of the woods.  The
patents asserted are well known, and at least one of them has been
asserted and litigated before (in an MPEG-2 context) if I recall
correctly.  They were also declared as being available under RAND terms in
both ISO/IEC an the ITU.

---

From: "Paul E. Jones" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 22:04:42 -0400

Silvia,

> > Motorola is a known patent holder.  So if Microsoft.  I assume
> > Microsoft elected to ignore Motorola's patent claims, and I assume
> > Motorola ignored Microsoft's patents, too, as I'm sure there would
> > have been a reciprocity agreement in place otherwise.  I don't know,
> > but if you want to use H.264, then you would have known to talk to
> Motorola and MS.
> 
> So what's the point in having the patent pool if you have to talk to all
> the individual patent owners anyway?

Motorola is not part of the pool, I do not believe.  I would assume one
would not have to talk to those that do participate in the pool, but that
may not be true, either.  In any case, the pool certainly makes it easier to
license the collective set of patents that are listed in the pool.

> > The "why" is unknown. It might be that a license was acquired. It
> > might be that patent holders do not care since the same companies are
> > already licensing their patents.  Perhaps the usage is not as high as
> > other codecs, including MP3 and G.729?
> 
> You might be surprised about the usage - a substantial amount of games use
> Vorbis because they don't have to pay for a license. Indeed, it is well
> known that Microsoft's Halo used Vorbis. For that very reason, I doubt
> that any of those companies acquired a patent license from any company
> claiming to own a patent on Vorbis or Speex. In fact, since nobody has
> claimed to have such patents, how would you even know who to license it
> from?

One would not.  And, one would still have to pay through the nose,
potentially, for patent infringement.  That's the problem with patents and
technology where the patent landscape is entirely unknown.
 
> >  The fact there isn't a lawsuit does not mean these are free from
> > patents, unless the technology is so old patents are expired.
> Existing lawsuits are the only quantitative measure that is available to
> find out about whether somebody is prepared to fight for their patents on
> a technology. Even patent pools don't work for this, apparently.

Can't agree with that one.  Recall the GIF file format?  Well after it
became widely used, Unisys went around forcing people to pay royalties.  How
many years did people believe that was free?
 
> > You're ignoring one point I made.  Those involved in the creation of
> > H.264 have quite likely filed IPR statements with ISO or ITU.  If some
> > other company were to come out of the closet on this with something
> > that blindsides the industry, the industry would fight it.  At the
> > very least, whatever bit of IPR that is claimed would have to be put
> > into perspective with respect to the other hundreds of patents on H.264.
> 
> If somebody was to come out of the woodworks over VP8, I'd expect Google
> to fight them. And all the other companies that have now invested into
> VP8. I don't think patents mean anything when it comes to the decision of
> whether to fight a patent claim or not: money talks.

By "fighting", I mean coming into court with evidence that would contradict
the infringed patent.  Google might be able to show that the particular way
that the bits of video are manipulated were already public or covered by one
of their patents, maybe not.

My feeling -- and that's all it is -- likely has a bunch more patent holders
who could demonstrate that their patents covered whatever it is that a
patent troll might try to claim.
 
> > BT, Oki, France Telecom, Qualcom, Nokia, Microsoft, Sony, NTT,
> > Motorola, TI, etc. are not obligated to make a statement, yet it would
> > not surprise me in the least if these companies do not have IPR.
> > Whether the enforce it is another matter.  They will only if it is in
> their interest.
> 
> If they've decided to use VP8, they license makes them take choose sides.
> There's no need for a patent pool to force them to take sides (in fact,
> that doesn't seem to have worked for Motorola and Microsoft anyway.

I don't understand your point here.  Perhaps I was not clear.  My point was
that these companies have no obligation to report IPR they hold on VP8,
whereas they do have some obligation to report on H.264.

It just comes down to the fact that I can *probably* identify all the patent
holders of H.264.  I might miss one, but it's doubtful that a legitimate
company would have not reported IPR by now.  That only leaves trolls to deal
with on H.264, and I suspect they would have a hard time making successful
claims.

VP8, though, is a wide-open opportunity for patent trolls and legit
companies alike to lay claim after the technology is widely deployed.  It
does not mean they will, but it's your gamble. :-)

Paul

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 23:37:28 -0400

> meeting: FRAND has recently gotten teeth.  I firmly believe so.

I think that the EC may agree with you :

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/12/345&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

"Following complaints by Apple and Microsoft, the Commission will
investigate, in particular, whether by seeking and enforcing
injunctions against Apple's and Microsoft's flagship products such as
iPhone, iPad, Windows and Xbox on the basis of patents it had declared
essential to produce standard-compliant products, Motorola has failed
to honour its irrevocable commitments made to standard setting
organisations. In these commitments, Motorola engaged to license those
standard-essential patents on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory
(FRAND) terms. The Commission will examine whether Motorola's
behaviour amounts to an abuse of a dominant market position prohibited
by Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU)."

I believe that the primary SSO of issue here is ETSI.

Regards
Marshall

>>>H.264
>>>Motorola, TI,

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 13:50:41 -0500

> hardware and software implementations of VP8.
That's very nice of Google, but I'm personally not worried about Google
filing suit against me (as a small developer) if I implement using VP8.

What I'm worried about is either a troll who has acquired a patent through
the usual fire-sale process, or a Big Old Research Lab that has a gazillion
patents but no revenue and decides to start monetizing patents its
management team had forgotten existed. Both sorts of entities are very
active in today's world of patent fights. And there are patents on design
patterns going way back; we're approaching a world of "solid invention"
where every alternative design for anything we know how to do has already
been described in a patent filing.

So if you really want me to be comfortable with implementing using VP8, buy
me an insurance policy that will indemnify me (and any other developer) for
any costs related to defending against any future infringement claims on
VP8. Perhaps I'd even settle for a free software stack that includes such
indemnification in its license. This wouldn't help the hardware
implementer, much, however.

--
Dean

---

From: Randell Jesup <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:28:58 -0400

On 4/10/2012 2:50 PM, Dean Willis wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Serge Lachapelle <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>
>     Google confirms that the VP8 patent grant applies to both
>     third-party hardware and software implementations of VP8.
>     *
>     *
>
>
> That's very nice of Google, but I'm personally not worried about 
> Google filing suit against me (as a small developer) if I implement 
> using VP8.
>
> What I'm worried about is either a troll who has acquired a patent 
> through the usual fire-sale process, or a Big Old Research Lab that 
> has a gazillion patents but no revenue and decides to start monetizing 
> patents its management team had forgotten existed. Both sorts of 
> entities are very active in today's world of patent fights. And there 
> are patents on design patterns going way back; we're approaching a 
> world of "solid invention" where every alternative design for anything 
> we know how to do has already been described in a patent filing.
>
> So if you really want me to be comfortable with implementing using 
> VP8, buy me an insurance policy that will indemnify me (and any other 
> developer) for any costs related to defending against any future 
> infringement claims on VP8. Perhaps I'd even settle for a free 
> software stack that includes such indemnification in its license. This 
> wouldn't help the hardware implementer, much, however.

Such is the world of patents (especially software/algorithmic patents).  
Stick to stuff that's ~25-30 years old and you're probably ok (though 
someone may ding you for combining old thing A with old thing B).  
Original MPEG-1 for video is probably ok, just don't add anything to it 
or extend it or use it  in a way not originally envisioned (like over 
the internet).

Or live with non-0 risk of patent trolls.

-- 
Randell Jesup
[email-masked]

---

From: Monty Montgomery <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:34:51 -0400

(not actually a quote):

> So if you really want me to be comfortable with implementing using h264, buy
> h264. Perhaps I'd even settle for a fully licensed software stack that includes such
> indemnification in its license. This wouldn't help the hardware implementer,
> much, however.

Well darn, that isn't going to fly either!

Monty
Xiph.Org

---

From: "Paul E. Jones" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 00:18:59 -0400

> > h264, buy me an insurance policy that will indemnify me (and any other
> > infringement claims on h264. Perhaps I'd even settle for a fully
> > licensed software stack that includes such indemnification in its
> > license. This wouldn't help the hardware implementer, much, however.
> 

We're still debating this on this?

I said before, either direction is a gamble.  But, the odds of not getting
successfully sued are in your favor with H.264, in my opinion.  Here's why:

1) Virtually all companies that have IPR on H.264 are known and the odds of
new companies entering the scene at this late stage are slim (seriously,
what troll would not have already made a claim by now)
2) Companies who developed H.264 have a financial interest in ensuring
H.264's success and would work to defend against bogus claims (I cannot
offer up their legal resources, but clearly they will not want some bogus
claim to stand in the way of profits, either from use of H.264 themselves or
licensing H.264 technology)
3) H.264 is EXTREMELY WIDELY deployed now and anything less than a concrete
claim is going to scrutinized heavily, the costs to pursue claims very high,
etc.  Legitimate companies with IPR should have already filed statements and
serious questions would have been asked.  To say such "holdout" companies
would not win friends at this point with some claim would be an
understatement.
4) While law and logic are sometimes at odds, I have to work from logic
since I'm not a lawyer.  Logically speaking, if there are 200+ patents
covering various aspects of H.264 and one more company comes in to make
claims, what should any reasonable court agree as to the value of that lone
patent versus the 200+ others on the same piece of technology?  (OK, this
might be reaching, but I seriously do think that damage awards would have to
considered in the context of that background.)
5) A damaging claim against H.264 at this point would affect entire
industries, and not just one industry.  I think even governments should
care, because it has an economic impact on a country.  I cannot imagine that
any court would issue an in injunction to halt sale of videos or streaming
video services world-wide, for example, on the basis of some claim relating
to some unknown patent nearly 10 years after the standard was produced.  If
such a claimant had valid IPR and even remotely claimed to be a subject
matter expert, they should be fully aware that every effort has been made to
identify IPR holders.  If I were a judge, I would not be too tolerant of
this (what I classify) deliberate, malicious, destructive behavior.

Now, should you choose to go down the path of VP8:

1) The only known IPR holder is Google, who has kindly offered to make their
IPR available for free
2) There are many, many companies who have IPR on H.264 because their
business includes, entirely or as a part, video coding.  It's impossible for
me to believe that with so much IPR on H.264 and so much research that went
into H.264, much of that research NOT finding its way into H.264, that not a
single one of those inventions by one of those companies does not cover VP8
3) There are legitimate companies who have invested millions in the
development of H.264 and own IPR on H.264.  Should VP8 becomes successful
and those companies lose revenue at the expense of VP8 and they hold IPR on
VP8, they would have every valid reason to assess royalties on your use of
VP8.  What do you want to bet that the royalties will be even higher than
use of H.264, too?  (That's a different bet, but since we're gambling
here...)
4) VP8 is not a standard and nobody was obligated to file any IPR statements
on VP8 (whereas participants in the development of H.264 were all requested
to submit statements; company representatives are asked at nearly every
meeting)
5) VP8 is not widely deployed and, quite possibly, not widely studied, even
by a good many experts in the video coding space  (I'm sure some have
studied it, but I am sure others are busy building "the next great thing").
As such, nobody should be surprised one day if VP8 does become widely
deployed that a company other than Google comes along and lays claim to the
technology
6) Should you get sued for embedding VP8 in your hardware or using it in
your software, Google is not going to indemnify you.  You are on your own.
The industry is not going to back you up (whereas I think they would for
H.264's benefit), because we all know that using VP8 is done so at our own
risk.  Perhaps with really good luck an H.264 patent holder might come to
your defense with evidence to refute, but don't count on it.  Those IPR
holders would prefer you switch to H.264.

As I said before, my opinions say nothing about the technical merits of one
codec vs. the other.  This is just my ramblings as I think through the legal
minefield here.  I personally see H.264 as relatively safe as compared to
VP8.

Of course, we will never know until VP8 gets widely deployed.  No IPR holder
who would be seeking to profit on VP8 will disclose a thing until VP8 is
widely deployed.

It is a gamble.  Place your bets.  My money is on H.264 as the safer option.

Paul

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 01:29:13 -0500

> successfully sued are in your favor with H.264, in my opinion.  Here's why:
That's arguable. As a small developer (and a poor one), I'm not able to pay
for licensing H.264. Therefore, my odds of getting sued (if anybody notices
my work) are pretty high. Just ask Microsoft what the odds of getting sued
for using H.264 are ... or the costs of trying to license it (reports are
that Moto was asking $4 billion for their patents alone).

http://www.rethink-wireless.com/article.asp?article_id=23154

I'm not saying VP8 is any safer in the long run, but it's certainly easier
to comply with its licensing terms up front. So I might accidentally
infringe, but it wouldn't be willful (at least on the essential core; there
are a lot of patents about there about stuff you might want to do with the
video that cover both codecs).

Think of it as picking up a random snake that MIGHT be venomous, versus
picking up one that's already buzzing its tail and striking at movement
(caught one in my yard Monday, actually).

The thing to remember is that you need to handle both with respect. They're
still snakes. Even an unenvenomed bite can get infected. And the quiet one
might be a cobra instead of a rattlesnake.

--
Dean

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 01:50:20 -0500

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 1:47 AM, Paul E. Jones <p
> probably owns that IPR.  Sure, there might be something ... something very
Both H.264 and  VP8 are motion-vector codings, right?

A quick search on Google Patents shows about 32,400 existing motion vector
video patents. What do you want to bet some of those apply  to one or the
other? Or both? Or both plus H.263?

Just because they haven't been asserted yet doesn't mean they're not real.
It might mean that the people that own them aren't paying attention. Or
weren't, but have started. Or don't care, but might be willing to sell
their patent to someone who does.

The simple fact is that there are a crapload of patents out there, and
creative reading can get a patent owner fired up enough to start trying to
collect revenue on even a very bad patent -- and with hundreds of thousands
of patents in the area, some of them are likely to be very good. And in
certain venues (the Eastern District of Texas comes to mind), there's a
strong presumption that patents are valid and the courts are known to grant
damages even though a reexamination is pending. And even if the patent is
bogus and you win, you've still spent a lot of money. I'd guess your firm
spends more than my yearly revenue on defending even the lamest individual
suit.

So what I'm saying is that it doesn't matter whether you use H.264 or VP8;
you're eventually going to get sued by somebody, and it's going to be
expensive and annoying. Build in a revenue margin to plan for it. But there
is an argument to make that if you use H.264, you know that somebody with
an M in their name is going to be involved SOON unless you fork out cash in
advance, whereas if you use VP8, you can hope to maybe wait longer for the
surprise and can save your money until then.

That said, they both still make me nervous. Can't we just use tin cans and
string? ;-)

--
Dean

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 02:03:51 -0500

> with respect to the other hundreds of patents on H.264.
This actually is a good point. Since the existing H.264 claimants gain
revenue therefrom, they are likely to act to protect their share of the
revenue. It's kind of like the local mob keeping outsiders from putting the
squeeze on businesses in their domain.

On the other hand, if I can't afford to "buy in" to their protection racket
up front, my kneecaps might be in trouble.

So do you want a nice safe Northeastern city with a godfather who will make
you an offer you can't refuse, or a Wild West free-for-all with a mix of
hard working frontiersmen, militant ranch-barons, drunken cowboys, and the
occasional marauding aborigine?

Different strokes for different folks, I think.

--
Dean

---

From: "Paul E. Jones" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 03:09:52 -0400

To be fair, Microsoft and Motorola are just having a lovers quarrel.  Do
recall that Microsoft has sued Motorola over Android, now they're suing
back. It would not surprise me if there were other spats along the way, but
I don't keep up with all of these law suits.

If Motorola goes knocking on the doors of the thousands of other H.264 users
out there, I might believe there is a concern and that Motorola is trying to
kill H.264.  I don't believe that's the case, though.  And I doubt that
Motorola would charge you the same $4B to use their patents, either.  Go ask
them.

In any case, when Google swallows Motorola, Google has an opportunity once
again to prove that it does no evil.  Google gets to manipulate those odds I
mentioned.

Paul

From: Dean Willis [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 2:50 AM
To: Paul E. Jones
Cc: Basil Mohamed Gohar; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Google VP8 Patent Grant for third parties [Was
Re:Proposal for H.263 baseline codec]

Just because they haven't been asserted yet doesn't mean they're not real.
It might mean that the people that own them aren't paying attention. Or
weren't, but have started. Or don't care, but might be willing to sell their
patent to someone who does.

So what I'm saying is that it doesn't matter whether you use H.264 or VP8;
you're eventually going to get sued by somebody, and it's going to be
expensive and annoying. Build in a revenue margin to plan for it. But there
is an argument to make that if you use H.264, you know that somebody with an
M in their name is going to be involved SOON unless you fork out cash in
advance, whereas if you use VP8, you can hope to maybe wait longer for the
surprise and can save your money until then.

--
Dean

---

From: "Olle E. Johansson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:21:37 +0200

12 apr 2012 kl. 08:50 skrev Dean Willis:

> So what I'm saying is that it doesn't matter whether you use H.264 or VP8; you're eventually going to get sued by somebody, and it's going to be expensive and annoying. Build in a revenue margin to plan for it. But there is an argument to make that if you use H.264, you know that somebody with an M in their name is going to be involved SOON unless you fork out cash in advance, whereas if you use VP8, you can hope to maybe wait longer for the surprise and can save your money until then.
> 
> That said, they both still make me nervous. Can't we just use tin cans and string? ;-)
> 

This is really bad news for Open Source. Even if we try to get a way to pay for licenses, our business model is far away from understandable for most of the syndicates. I tried with the AMR codec once and it stopped at initial order quantity. Anything under 10.000 licenses was not up for discussion.

G.729 is available on one-by-one basis which both Asterisk and FreeSwitch sell to users... I have no insight into how these agreements was worked out, but it at least indicates that someone tries to open up.

/O

---

From: Erik Lagerway <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:31:03 -0700

As a poor and rather nervous developer trying to avoid any slithering reptiles laying await in the grass, VP8 seems to be the not so obvious choice here. Would be better if Google could get behind this a little more as the vagueness could drive some to using H.263 (plegh), liability or not, most perceive 263 as royalty free.

As it stands...

VP8 +1

On 2012-04-11, at 11:29 PM, Dean Willis <[email-masked]> wrote:

> That's arguable. As a small developer (and a poor one), I'm not able to pay for licensing H.264. Therefore, my odds of getting sued (if anybody notices my work) are pretty high. Just ask Microsoft what the odds of getting sued for using H.264 are ... or the costs of trying to license it (reports are that Moto was asking $4 billion for their patents alone).
> 
> I'm not saying VP8 is any safer in the long run, but it's certainly easier to comply with its licensing terms up front. So I might accidentally infringe, but it wouldn't be willful (at least on the essential core; there are a lot of patents about there about stuff you might want to do with the video that cover both codecs).
> 
> Think of it as picking up a random snake that MIGHT be venomous, versus picking up one that's already buzzing its tail and striking at movement (caught one in my yard Monday, actually).
> 
> The thing to remember is that you need to handle both with respect. They're still snakes. Even an unenvenomed bite can get infected. And the quiet one might be a cobra instead of a rattlesnake.
> 
> --
> Dean

---

From: "Kevin P. Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 11:09:59 -0500

> G.729 is available on one-by-one basis which both Asterisk and FreeSwitch sell to users... I have no insight into how these agreements was worked out, but it at least indicates that someone tries t…

It is my understanding that the licensing arrangements that have been 
made for G.729 are no longer an option for new licensees (not offered by 
the consortium), and to my knowledge such arrangements have never been 
an option for any of the other voice/video codecs that our customers 
have asked us about (including H.264, the AMR family and others).

-- 
Kevin P. Fleming
Digium, Inc. | Director of Software Technologies
Jabber: [email-masked] | SIP: [email-masked] | Skype: kpfleming
445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA
Check us out at www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org

---

From: "Olle E. Johansson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 18:21:40 +0200

12 apr 2012 kl. 18:09 skrev Kevin P. Fleming:

> It is my understanding that the licensing arrangements that have been made for G.729 are no longer an option for new licensees (not offered by the consortium), and to my knowledge such arrangements have never been an option for any of the other voice/video codecs that our customers have asked us about (including H.264, the AMR family and others).

And isn't that a shame. The question here for the legal department is wether Google's policies in regards to VP8 is enough for companies like you to work with it in either binary addons or Open Source code? Does it provide enough liability assurance?

I think that question is where we are right now.

If not, will Google try to offer a solution?

/O

---

From: "Paul E. Jones" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 23:48:33 -0400

Olle,

> >> This is really bad news for Open Source. Even if we try to get a way to
> pay for licenses, our business model is far away from understandable for
> most of the syndicates. I tried with the AMR codec once and it stopped at
> initial order quantity. Anything under 10.000 licenses was not up for
> discussion.

Would a patent holder even both with litigation if the patent owner fely
that licensing in quantities of less than 10,000 units is not worth the
money?  Likely not.  Litigation is expensive and patent trolls will only do
it if there is money to be made.  Legitimate companies do not sue unless
there is either profit to be made or (as with the Microsoft/Motorola case)
there is big money at stake related to something bigger than what the legal
case is over.

That said, there is always the risk of getting sued before you can get the
front doors to your small business propped open.  Still, one cannot stop out
of fear of legal action.  Half the companies in Silicon Valley would never
have opened if they concerned themselves too much with patents.

However, if successful, a day will come when it's "time to pay the fiddler
his due."  And when that day comes, there is some comfort in knowing who you
go to in order to license the technology you are using.

> >> G.729 is available on one-by-one basis which both Asterisk and
> FreeSwitch sell to users... I have no insight into how these agreements
> was worked out, but it at least indicates that someone tries to open up.
> >
> the consortium), and to my knowledge such arrangements have never been an
> option for any of the other voice/video codecs that our customers have
> asked us about (including H.264, the AMR family and others).
> 
> And isn't that a shame. The question here for the legal department is
> wether Google's policies in regards to VP8 is enough for companies like
> you to work with it in either binary addons or Open Source code? Does it
> provide enough liability assurance?

Google's policies will not prevent you from getting sued one day when
successful.  What would make me feel better is if Google could indemnify
people.  If they feel they own all of the technology in VP8, they could
indemnify people.  I would be pleasantly surprised if their legal team truly
feels so confident that they own all of the technology in VP8, though.

With H.264, you know where to go license technology once you start to see a
little success.  The IPR holders are known.  I cannot imagine a troll out
there who wouldn't have already filed a lawsuit by now.  (And I'll note
again that VP8 might even have elements that are covered by IPR holders who
also own IPR on H.264 and who may not be so willing to license it for use
with VP8.  I see a definite business risk there that I don't see with AMR or
H.264.)

> If not, will Google try to offer a solution?

I would not suggest you hold your breath :-)  I applaud Google for taking
the steps it has taken so far, but I do not think there is more they can
offer than what they have already.

Paul

---

From: "Paul E. Jones" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 23:54:27 -0400

I hate auto-correct.

"even both" --> "even bother"
"owner fely that" --> "owner felt that"
...

I hope the text can be parsed by most ;-)

Paul

> Of Paul E. Jones
> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 11:49 PM
> To: 'Olle E. Johansson'; 'Kevin P. Fleming'
> Cc: [email-masked]
> > pay for licenses, our business model is far away from understandable
> > for most of the syndicates. I tried with the AMR codec once and it
> > stopped at initial order quantity. Anything under 10.000 licenses was
> > not up for discussion.
> 
> money?  Likely not.  Litigation is expensive and patent trolls will only
> do it if there is money to be made.  Legitimate companies do not sue
> unless there is either profit to be made or (as with the
> Microsoft/Motorola case) there is big money at stake related to something
> bigger than what the legal case is over.
> 
> front doors to your small business propped open.  Still, one cannot stop
> out of fear of legal action.  Half the companies in Silicon Valley would
> never have opened if they concerned themselves too much with patents.
> 
> his due."  And when that day comes, there is some comfort in knowing who
> you go to in order to license the technology you are using.
> 
> > FreeSwitch sell to users... I have no insight into how these
> > agreements was worked out, but it at least indicates that someone tries
> to open up.
> > >
> > made for G.729 are no longer an option for new licensees (not offered
> > by the consortium), and to my knowledge such arrangements have never
> > been an option for any of the other voice/video codecs that our
> > customers have asked us about (including H.264, the AMR family and
> others).
> >
> > wether Google's policies in regards to VP8 is enough for companies
> > like you to work with it in either binary addons or Open Source code?
> > Does it provide enough liability assurance?
> 
> indemnify people.  I would be pleasantly surprised if their legal team
> truly feels so confident that they own all of the technology in VP8,
> though.
> 
> With H.264, you know where to go license technology once you start to see
> a little success.  The IPR holders are known.  I cannot imagine a troll
> out there who wouldn't have already filed a lawsuit by now.  (And I'll
> note again that VP8 might even have elements that are covered by IPR
> holders who also own IPR on H.264 and who may not be so willing to license
> it for use with VP8.  I see a definite business risk there that I don't
> see with AMR or
> H.264.)
>