Re: [codec] A concrete proposal for requirements and testing

Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org> Thu, 07 April 2011 20:44 UTC

Return-Path: <stewe@stewe.org>
X-Original-To: codec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: codec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C1293A6977 for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 13:44:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.188
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.188 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.411, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8I9T11iKMHu4 for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 13:44:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stewe.org (stewe.org [85.214.122.234]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3CCE3A68C3 for <codec@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 13:44:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.108] (unverified [24.5.184.151]) by stewe.org (SurgeMail 3.9e) with ESMTP id 7205-1743317 for multiple; Thu, 07 Apr 2011 22:46:30 +0200
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.0.101115
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 13:46:23 -0700
From: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>
To: Monty Montgomery <xiphmont@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C9C36AEA.2A080%stewe@stewe.org>
Thread-Topic: [codec] A concrete proposal for requirements and testing
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikvx65MP96w=akZy+Mnz=cJ2P_2iw@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: 24.5.184.151
X-Authenticated-User: stewe@stewe.org
X-ORBS-Stamp: Your IP (24.5.184.151) was found in the spamhaus database. http://www.spamhaus.net
Cc: codec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [codec] A concrete proposal for requirements and testing
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec WG <codec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/codec>
List-Post: <mailto:codec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 20:44:52 -0000

Let me try to be more precise (and, unfortunately, more verbose).

The context of my statement, and yours (I believe) is the possible testing
of opus against other codecs.  Some of us believe that the selection of
the codecs tested against opus ought to be independent from their
licensing scheme.  My understanding is that you (and others) advocate
testing should focus on codecs known or believed as royalty free.  I don't
agree with this, but let's assume it anyway in a thought experiment: let's
test only codecs with comparable licensing schemes.

There are some codecs that are believed to be out of patent (1), others
are believed to be RF because the known rightholders (based on disclosures
received in the IETF, ITU, or elsewhere) have stated in public that they
do not demand royalties (2).  Still others never have received formal
standardization in an organization with a disclosure obligation, so one
cannot be as confident about their encumbrance or lack thereof; but there
may be statements from the lead development organization that they are not
aware of patents not available under RF terms (3).  The assorted open
source codecs and Silk appear to belong into this category.

According to Qualcomm, they will make six patents they believe read on
opus under terms that are not necessarily royalty free ("with possibly
royalty/fee").  Therefore, opus does not fit any of the three categories
mentioned above.  Regardless of the intentions of the proponents here, at
this point opus v5 cannot reasonably perceived to be royalty free.

The net result appears to me to be that requiring opus v5 to be tested
against only RF technologies seems unfair, as it tests technologies
believed to be RF (with all the technology drawbacks that may include)
against a technology that has six granted US patents (and a number of
international counterparts) disclosed against it, all of which may not be
available under RF terms.

So try your design around, hope that Qualcomm is amicable to submit an
updated disclosure against your (hopefully clean) solution, and only then
propose to test only against RF technologies.  Before that, compete fairly.

Stephan
 

On 4.7.2011 13:11 , "Monty Montgomery" <xiphmont@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org> wrote:
>> At this point, there is no indication that opus is going to be royalty
>> free.
>
>Those most concerned with delivering royalty free status would appear to
>be
>no more concerned than at any earlier point in the process.
>
>>   In fact, there is evidence to the contrary:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1520/
>
>How so?  This is evidence that things are working properly and as hoped
>(and kudos to Qualcomm for acting in spirit).
>
>With patent numbers of concern in hand, we can make certain those
>patents either do not read on a final standard or are freely
>licensed if used.  IPR declarations greatly enhance the certainty
>of the project, they do not detract.
>
>Monty
>Xiph.Org