[RTW] [dispatch] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-protocols-00

[Silvia Pfeiffer]

Where is the MPEG-LA patent pool for WebM? As far as I can tell this has
just been a hollow announcement, but MPEG-LA have not been able to set up
such a patent pool yet. Maybe it's because there aren't any patents out
there that are being infringed? Unfortunately, the non-existence of
infringing patents can never be proven and this situation is therefore
always open to creating fear, uncertainty and doubt.

Also note that going through an actual standardisation process and becoming
part of a license pool by MPEG-LA doesn't actually protect you from lawsuits
for patent infringement, see e.g.
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/74186,apple-samsung-and-sandisk-hit-by-mp3-patent-claim.aspx

MPEG-LA patent pools are only there to protect you from lawsuits of patents
that are being made available through the pool. The pool is not an insurance
against patent infringement lawsuits - not even from those that have joined
the patent pool, as the law suit of Lucent against MicroSoft has taught us:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcatel-Lucent_v._Microsoft

As said before: IPR issues are not a good decision factor on which to select
a codec for common use. Royalty-free is important. And the rest should be
based on technical merit.

Regards,
Silvia.


On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:46 PM, David Singer <singer at apple.com> wrote:

> I have to agree.  If IPR issues are what we want to avoid, VP8 seems like a
> poor choice (e.g. <
> http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/mpeg-la-looking-at-patents-for-googles-vp8webm-video/
> >).
>
> On Dec 21, 2010, at 13:38 , markus.isomaki at nokia.com wrote:
>
> Hi Peter, all,
>
> About the video codec: Are there any arguments on why VP8 would not have
> IPR issues? It is available as an open source implementation, but that does
> not mean there are no IPR against it. My understanding is that the IPR
> situation wrt. VP8 is still unclear and thus risky. The other issue with VP8
> is, as far as I know, the lack of a clear spec out of which independent
> interoperable implementations can be created.
>
> So I don’t at least buy the argument that we should choose VP8 as mandatory
> to implement video codec because of IPR reasons.
>
> I’m working on a separate review on Harald’s drafts (thanks for putting
> them together) and will come back to the codec issue there in more detail,
> but just wanted to respond to Peter’s point here.
>
> Regards,
>                 Markus
>
> *From:* dispatch-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:dispatch-bounces at ietf.org] *On
> Behalf Of *ext Peter Musgrave
> *Sent:* 17 December, 2010 13:48
> *To:* Harald Alvestrand
> *Cc:* rtc-web at alvestrand.no; dispatch at ietf.org; Ted Hardie
> *Subject:* Re: [dispatch] Fwd: New Version Notification for
> draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-protocols-00
>
> I'd also like to echo Alan's thanks for these drafts.
>
> The protocol doc is very clear. [If you read only one dispatch draft this
> Christmas, make it this one. ;-)  ]
>
> One observation to the group. The mandatory to implement video CODEC is VP8
> (presumably since it does not have IPR issues - which some other choices
> would have).
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter Musgrave
>
>
> Nits
> Introduction
> s/veichle/vehicle/
>
> Section 2 Para "Within each.."
> s/implementaiton/implementation/
>
> Section 4 Para1
> "such as" (something missing here?)
>
> Section 5 Para2
> "There is no third mandatory to implement"
> ? Was there a mention of a third before. Not sure why this statement is
> there.
>
>
> On 2010-11-10, at 6:34 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>
>
> This is the overview document for the IETF-related RTC-WEB work.
>
> -------- Original Message --------
>  *Subject:*
> New Version Notification for draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-protocols-00
> *Date:*
> Wed, 10 Nov 2010 03:31:05 -0800 (PST)
> *From:*
> IETF I-D Submission Tool <idsubmission at ietf.org> <idsubmission at ietf.org>
> *To:*
> harald at alvestrand.no
>
>
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-protocols-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Harald Alvestrand and posted to the IETF repository.
>
>
>
>
> Filename:      draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-protocols
>
>
> Revision:      00
>
> Title:         Overview: Real Time Protocols for Brower-based Applications
>
>
> Creation_date:  2010-11-11
>
> WG ID:         Independent Submission
>
>
> Number_of_pages: 9
>
>
>
> Abstract:
>
> This document gives an overview of a protocol suite intended for use
>
>
> with real-time applications that can be deployed in browsers - "real
>
> time communication on the Web".
>
>
>
>
> It intends to serve as a starting and coordination point to make sure
>
>
> all the parts that are needed to achieve this goal are findable, and
>
> that the parts that belong in the Internet protocol suite are fully
>
> specified and on the right publication track.
>
>
>
>
> This work is an attempt to synthesize the input of many people, but
>
>
> makes no claims to fully represent the views of any of them.  All
>
> parts of the document should be regarded as open for discussion.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The IETF Secretariat.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> dispatch at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> dispatch at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>
>
>  David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTC-Web mailing list
> RTC-Web at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/rtc-web
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/rtc-web/attachments/20101222/83ff5ac1/attachment-0001.html>