- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:15:28 +1000
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 5:07 PM, David Singer<singer@apple.com> wrote: > At 14:25 +1000 15/07/09, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > <some useful background on h.264> >> >> I do not think that setting up a patent pool for Theora makes any sense at >> all: >> >> first - the only known patents that Theora makes use of are the ones >> owned by On2 and On2 have already provided royalty-free licenses to >> these; so, it would be a very lonesome pool > > actually, as has been pointed out, the only statement we can find seems to > be a license to the software and derivative works of it, not to the > underlying patents (and hence independent implementations) This is being worked on. There should be a reaction to it some time soon. Lawyers take their time to reply to such requests of clarification. :) >> secondly - there are no royalties to distribute, which would make the >> exercise pointless > > not quite. it is possible to ask all patent holders to offer a free license > to everyone who either confesses they have no IPR, or who thinks they may > but is also willing to offer a free license. This leaves the IPR owner > wishing to charge 'out in the cold' without a license to all the base IPR. > I think this is what Dirac does. That's a good approach, too. > It does not protect against a someone who has IPR but no intent to use the > technology Yes, but that is also the case for the MPEG-LA patent pool. Regards, Silvia.
Received on Wednesday, 15 July 2009 08:16:28 UTC