Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Current H.264 licensing practice

From: David Benham <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 14:40:08 -0800

Extrapolating from an EULA what one's rtcweb dev/distribution license
rights is likely way off base.

You can read the MPEG-LA's FAQ here ...
http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Documents/AVC_TermsSummary.pdf
Note the graphic and text for "(b) sublicenses" on pages 2 and 3.

The commercial royalties described are targeted at Service Providers of
on-demand titles and/or broadcast TV over the Internet with greater 100K
subscribers and great remuneration (aka, subscription or ad revenue).
Think the likes of Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc, using the video tag and
*not* the support-desk in your example or commercial, real-time
communications.

Disclaimer: *IANAL*

David Benham
Self

   - *From*: Florian Weimer <fw at deneb.enyo.de <[email-masked]>>
   - *To*: rtcweb at ietf.org <[email-masked]>
   - *Date*: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 20:30:31 +0100
   - *List-id*: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <
   rtcweb.ietf.org>

------------------------------

After reviewing the end-user patent licensing statements regarding
H.264/AVC of various products (Microsoft Windows, Adobe Flash, a Canon
camera, Skype, and some Cisco manuals), I'm puzzled what the net
effect of the Cisco licensing effort will be.

The most striking aspect of the current licensing regime is that the
existing platform codecs are exclusively licensed for "personal,
non-commercial activity".  As far as I can tell, this means that I
cannot use these codecs to develop my own software and distribute it
without a separate MPEG LA license.  Furthermore, if I engage in
commercial activity involving H.264 streams (such as paid teaching or
technical support over Skype, to give an example that seems fairly
relevant to me), I need a separate license as well, even if I use
already existing software for which the vendor has acquired patent
licenses.  This even applies to professional video (conferencing)
equipment.

I wonder what this means in the context of WebRTC.  Would web
application development be covered?  What about commercial use of such
web applications?  Under the existing licensing practice, the answer
appears to be that these activities need separate licenses.  To me,
that suggests that even after the Cisco effort, H.264 is still not a
replacement for a royalty-free codec.  Freedom from royalties for
browser vendors is not sufficient if (web) application developers and
end users do not benefit.

(I know that the concrete licensing terms are not published yet, but I
find it rather unlikely that Cisco has negotiated a better deal for
the non-paying general public than for its own paying customers.)

---

From: Florian Weimer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 07:19:46 +0100

> rights is likely way off base.

I disagree, considering the broad overlap between EULAs from different
vendors and very different product categories.

> Note the graphic and text for "(b) sublicenses" on pages 2 and 3.

That document seems to date from 2004 or 2005, despite the metadata
timestamp.  The Internet was quite different then.  Internet video
conferencing existed, but was difficult to get to work.  Mobile
Internet used EDGE, with bandwidths less 500 kbps.

> *not* the support-desk in your example or commercial, real-time

Uhm, that's not how patent licensing works.  You need a license even
if the patent owner has no ready-made offering that fits your
particular needs.

---

From: David Benham <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 08:14:10 -0800

That's not how most anti-trust friendly patent pools work; certainly not
this MPEG-LA one.   The T&Cs are what they are and related royalty
liabilities, if any, are what they are.   They do not change at the whim of
a single, major patent owner; instead several dozen must agree.  Thus, its
very difficult change them, providing lots of stability -- to look at the
bright side -- and that makes the summary document you dismissed nearly
timeless.

The T&Cs and royalty liabilities do not change per licensee (ergo, not
negotiated) .   They are not dependent on bandwidth rates either.   In this
case, the licensors also bound themselves to be unable increase royalties
by more than 10% every five years (...suspect Cisco can handle that).
  Providers
of on-demand titles and/or broadcast TV over the Internet with greater than
100K subscribers and remuneration (aka, subscription or ad revenue) are the
only service providers with royalty liabilities.   If still unconvinced,
ask for the full license doc and/or call MPEG-LA to seek further clarity.

Otherwise, let's wait for the Cisco binary license vs extrapolating from a
EULA.

---

From: Tim Panton new <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 16:24:53 +0000

On 8 Nov 2013, at 16:14, David Benham <[email-masked]> wrote:

> That's not how most anti-trust friendly patent pools work; certainly not this MPEG-LA one.   The T&Cs are what they are and related royalty liabilities, if any, are what they are.   They do not change at the whim of a single, major patent owner; instead several dozen must agree.  Thus, its very difficult change them, providing lots of stability -- to look at the bright side -- and that makes the summary document you dismissed nearly timeless.  
> 
> The T&Cs and royalty liabilities do not change per licensee (ergo, not negotiated) .   They are not dependent on bandwidth rates either.   In this case, the licensors also bound themselves to be unable increase royalties by more than 10% every five years (...suspect Cisco can handle that).    Providers of on-demand titles and/or broadcast TV over the Internet with greater than 100K subscribers and remuneration (aka, subscription or ad revenue) are the only service providers with royalty liabilities.   If still unconvinced, ask for the full license doc and/or call MPEG-LA to seek further clarity.  
> 

Interesting datapoint on the >100K subscribers front.  From Flurry - (via @BenedictEvans) There are at
least 800 app developers with > 1M subscribers. So there seem to me to be quite a few 'Little guys' who
may avoid webRTC if it requires an H264 license . 

http://blog.flurry.com//bid/102208/the-mobile-content-exlposion

---

From: Tim Panton new <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 16:24:53 +0000