[RTW] Known encumberances != exhaustive list of encumberances (was Gateways and does anyone think "H.264 for ever"?)

[David Singer]

On Jan 8, 2011, at 0:42 , Adam Roach wrote:

>> Contrast that with someone who believes that they might have a patent on Theora.  While it's an open-source codec in development with limited deployment, where is the incentive (let alone requirement) to check? A statement that Theora needs a license would be unpopular (!), would take real time and effort to check (the analysis), and result in bad PR and no revenue, even if you win.  On the other hand, if you wait, and then someone who is both (a) rich and (b) you don't like or wish to fight back against, deploys it, you now have the incentive to check and go after it.
> 
> Google, which has embedded both Theora and VP8 in Chrome, has a $198B market cap and $23B of annual revenue.  How large is a company before you consider it to have deep enough pockets to bother raiding? I mean, if we're talking about software companies, there are only three or so that can be legitimately considered "larger" by any financial metric.

You address only one of my points, and answer a strawman.  "IF the patent holder's only interest is money THEN why haven't they sued Google?". Perhaps they have a cross-license. Perhaps they are in negotiation with Google over this or other matters. Perhaps...

>>   But we have to be realistic about what we pursue.
> 
> How is considering VP8 and/or Theora as a baseline unrealistic? I'm not saying either should be a foregone conclusion; I'd like to see a well-reasoned discussion around codec selection.

Then we agree;  that's what I want also.

> But I don't think characterizing RF technologies as inherently having excessive IPR risk falls into the category of "well-reasoned," even if certain licensing entities have engaged in self-serving saber rattling on the topic.

The IPR risk varies by codec and how it was developed, and is only poorly-correlated with any stated RF status.

> But your implication that we should penalize a technology *because* it is not known to be encumbered is exactly the opposite of this.

That's not what I am saying.  I am saying we should be careful of codecs that were developed in such a way that their encumbrance status is not as clear we might like.


David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.