[RTW] VP8 IPR claims (Re: [dispatch] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-protocols-00)

[Harald Alvestrand]

On 12/21/10 22:46, David Singer 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/>).
That article is by now 7 months old (May 2010), and AFAIK, no specific 
IPR claims have been made public.

I wouldn't presume to claim that this proves anything.

                       Harald

>
> On Dec 21, 2010, at 13:38 , markus.isomaki at nokia.com 
> <mailto: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>[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 
>> <mailto:rtc-web at alvestrand.no>;dispatch at ietf.org 
>> <mailto: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> 
>> <mailto:idsubmission at ietf.org>
>> *To:*
>> 	
>> harald at alvestrand.no <mailto: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 <mailto:dispatch at ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>> _______________________________________________
>> dispatch mailing list
>> dispatch at ietf.org <mailto:dispatch at ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/rtc-web/attachments/20101222/2f950d32/attachment-0001.html>