Re: [codec] Royalty Free codec standards -- don't settle for less

[Eric Burger <[e-mail]>]

Am I missing something here?  I cannot tell if what you are saying is  
the JVC EG was able to produce a RF baseline (the last paragraph) or  
they were not able to produce a RF baseline (the second to last  
paragraph)?

One thing that is clearly different is IPR declaration in the IETF is  
not optional: it is mandatory and the policy is clear.  Moreover,  
there is established case law that if a participant neglects to  
declare their IPR, and the IPR gets incorporated into a standard, the  
participant loses their IP rights.

On Nov 12, 2009, at 2:10 AM, Rob Glidden wrote:

> No argument on the recipe -- build a royalty free house on a royalty  
> free foundation with royalty free bricks and royalty free  
> inspection, etc.
>
> But it wasn't the brick house that saved the three little pigs in  
> the end.
>
> It is about going the distance in the face of the inevitable  
> shilling, calls to drive into a ditch, meeting-stacking et al.
>
> And it is not about convincing the convinced -- it about proving  
> marketplace confidence. It is done all the time, codecs aren't the  
> unique special case some need them to be.
>
> Of course vet contributions for blocking patents and other loopholes.
>
> Some noteworthy stuff below.
>
> Rob
>
>
> 2001
>
> http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc29/29w12911jvt.pdf
> N4400, December 2001
>
> Terms of Reference for a Joint Project between ITU-T Q.6/SG16 and  
> ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG11
> for the Development of new Video Coding Recommendation and  
> International Standard
> ...
> "10.0 Patent and Copyright Issues
> The project and joint group will progress the project work in  
> compliance with the Intellectual Property
> Rights (“IPR”) policies and IPR reporting requirements and  
> procedures of both organisations
> (http://www.itu.int/ITU-Databases/TSBPatent/ and http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc29/29w7ipr.htm) 
> .
> *
> JVT will define a “baseline” profile. That profile should be royalty- 
> free for all implementations.* The
> performance of this profile will particularly be the subject of  
> performance verification tests.
> JVT’s rules for the implementation of the IPR policy are contained  
> in Annex 3."
>
>
> 2002
>
> http://lists.mpegif.org/pipermail/discuss/2002-May/000347.html
>
> [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] To those concerned about MPEG-4  
> Licensing ...
> Fernando Pereira fp lx.it.pt
> Mon May 13 18:40:38 EDT 2002
>
> * Previous message: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] To those  
> concerned about MPEG-4 Licensing ...
> * Next message: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] To those concerned  
> about MPEG- 4 Licensing ...
> * Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
>
> Hi ! Yuval Fisher wrote:
> >
> > > As for me, I'm looking at MPEG-4 Part 10 and hoping that it is
> > > patent-free ;-)
> > > I wouldn't hold your breath. Many companies are nervous about  
> submarine
> > patents. There's a strong anti-free-license movement in MPEG.
>
> Let me disagree with this statement ! As the current chairman of  
> MPEG Requirements, I would claim that MPEG is doing everything to  
> support the royalty free approach for the baseline profile of MPEG-4  
> part 10 (AVC) ... and there is a very large support within MPEG  
> members. Of course there is also people with a (legitimate)  
> different opinion but I would personally claim this is a minority.
>
> Let me also explain that the approach is not simply everything  
> royalty free but a combination of a royalty free baseline profile  
> with other more complex profiles not necessarily royalty free (but  
> RAND). This combination may provide a good compromise between the  
> two possible extreme alternatives. Finally let me inform that 2  
> profiles were defined for AVC/H.264 last week in Fairfax: BASELINE  
> (to be royalty free) and MAIN (not necessarily royalty free).
>
> Regards Fernando Pereira -- Fernando Manuel Bernardo Pereira, Ph.D.,  
> Professor
> Instituto Superior Técnico - Instituto de Telecomunicações
> Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisboa, PORTUGAL
> Phone: + 351 21 8418460 Fax: + 351 21 8418472
> E-mail: Fernando.Pereira lx.it.pt WWW: http://www.img.lx.it.pt/~fp/
>
>
>
> [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] To those concerned about MPEG- 4  
> Licensing ...
> Rob Koenen rkoenen intertrust.com
> Fri May 3 20:59:52 EDT 2002
>
> * Previous message: [M4IF Discuss] To those concerned about MPEG-4  
> Licensing ...
> * Next message: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] To those concerned  
> about MPEG- 4 Licensing ...
> * Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
>
> > > As for me, I'm looking at MPEG-4 Part 10 and hoping
> > that it is
> > > patent-free ;-)
> >
> >
> > I wouldn't hold your breath. Many companies are nervous about
> > submarine
> > patents. There's a strong anti-free-license movement in MPEG.
>
> Sweeping statements like these are very unhelpful.
>
> It may indeed be unlikley that full JVT codec is going to be RF
> (Royalty-Free).
> There is, however, a strong desire among many parties to try and
> establish a RF baseline. There is an ongoing effort to see how such
> an RF baseline could be established. It is area in which people like
> to maneuver carefully, for obvious reasons.
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> 2003
>
> http://lists.mpegif.org/pipermail/discuss/2003-November/000541.html
> Rob Koenen to Iain Richardson
> /Thu Nov 20 07:47:47 EST 2003
> /
>
> (1) Does this mean that the goal of a royalty-free Baseline Profile  
> is not
> going to happen ?
>
> ...
>
> I'll answer for what I know and understand today.
> 1) Via Licensing's website states that their proposed terms cover  
> "use of
> Baseline, Main, and Extended Profiles". MPEG LA's announcement  
> states "These
> terms cover the entire AVC Standard regardless of which Profile(s) are
> used". I think that gives you the answer.
>
>
>
>
> 2004
>
> H.264/MPEG-4 Part 10 is also subject to a number of essential.  
> patents.
> However, in order to make the new standard as accessible as possible,
> the JVT has attempted to make the Baseline Profile (see Chapter 6)
> 'royalty free'. During the standardisation process, holders of key
> patents were encouraged to notify JVT of their patent claims and to
> state whether they would permit a royalty free license to the
> patent(s). These patent statements have been taken into account during
> the development of the Profiles with the aim of keeping the Baseline
> free of royalty payments. As this process is voluntary and relies on  
> the
> correct identification of all relevant patents prior to  
> standardisation,
> it is not yet clear whether the goal of a royalty-free Profile will be
> realised but initial indications are positive [1].
>
> 1 In March 2003, 31 companies involved in the H.264 development  
> process
> and/or holding essential patents confirmed their support for a
> royalty-free Baseline Profile.
>
> Iain E.G. Richardson, H.264 and MPEG-4 Video Compression: Video Coding
> for Next-Generation Multimedia at 274 (John Wiley & Sons, 2004).
>
> 2007:
>
> (look also at what happened to the attorneys)
>
> "Thus, while the language of the JVT IPR policies may not expressly  
> require disclosure by all participants in all circumstances (e.g.,  
> if relevant IPR is not disclosed despite the use of best efforts),  
> it at least incorporates a best efforts standard (even apart from  
> the submission of technical proposals).
> ...
> In sum, we conclude that Qualcomm, as a participant in the JVT prior  
> to the release of the H.264 standard, did have IPR disclosure  
> obligations, as discussed above, under the written policies of both  
> the JVT and its parent organizations"
>
> http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/07-1545.pdf
>
> Trial court decision:
>
> http://www.klgates.com/files/upload/eDAT_Qualcomm_8_6_07_Order_on_Remedy.pdf
>
>
> 2007 SC29 revised patent policy
>
> http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc29/29w7ipr.htm
>
> "Although royalty-bearing patented technologies may be included in  
> SC 29 standards, SC 29 suggests to its WGs to promote, whenever  
> possible, the inclusion of technologies that either do not require a  
> patent license, or that only require a RAND license without a  
> royalty or license fee."
>
> 2007 ISO/ITU common patent policy
>
> 2009:
>
> MPEG HVC
>
>
>
>
>
> Eric Burger wrote:
>> In practical terms, I agree that there will be better and better  
>> codecs in the future. However, I would offer the older codecs are  
>> good enough for our purposes and will be safe.
>>
>> On Nov 11, 2009, at 1:15 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
>>
>>> The existence of at least a dozend of projects in the speech  
>>> coding field
>>> today suggests to me that we have not yet reached the point of  
>>> technology
>>> progress saturation in this field. Other that this minor point, I  
>>> agree.
>>>
>>> Stephan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/11/09 12:26 PM, "Koen Vos" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 1. Technological progress saturates.
>>>> 2. Patents expire.
>>>> Therefore, the performance advantage of royalty-bearing standards
>>>> diminishes with time, and high-quality, royalty-free standards are
>>>> unavoidable. I'm convinced that today we have reached this point of
>>>> commoditization for audio and speech coding technology.
>>>>
>>>> koen.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Quoting Rob Glidden:
>>>>> Here is my view, perhaps you share it, perhaps you don't.
>>>>>
>>>>> What the world needs now is royalty-free, standardized codecs.  
>>>>> This
>>>>> is critical to the future of the Web, and the progress the  
>>>>> Internet
>>>>> has brought to the world, and will bring to the world.
>>>>>
>>>>> Video, audio, transport, the whole thing. Evaluated, vetted for
>>>>> patents. Under an appropriate, responsible and complete royalty  
>>>>> free
>>>>> process. No less.
>>>>>
>>>>> IETF, ITU, and ISO/MPEG should all get going on this important
>>>>> activity -- after all why shouldn't all of these organizations
>>>>> include this as core to their mission.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have, and no doubt you have too, seen countless explanations why
>>>>> this should not, could not, will not, rather not, might not, or  
>>>>> can
>>>>> not happen. Some well meaning and sincere, some from vested
>>>>> interests. There are too many "powerful" interests against it.
>>>>> "Important" commercial interests are ambivalent. It is too hard
>>>>> "legally" or "politically" or "technically". It is just too
>>>>> confusing to think through. There is no longer a critical mass  
>>>>> that
>>>>> cares enough about keeping the future of the Open Internet open  
>>>>> and
>>>>> royalty free. The well meaning are ignorant, or naive. Etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't settle. Take the issue of royalty free, standardized codecs
>>>>> all the way to the top of these organizations. Do what it takes.  
>>>>> If
>>>>> it requires new organizations, start them. It it requires revised
>>>>> processes, revise them. This is the spirit that built the Web and
>>>>> the Internet, this is the spirit that is its lifeblood, and this  
>>>>> is
>>>>> the spirit that needs to be at the heart of its future.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't settle. Don't let those who have tried hard already, or have
>>>>> only half-heartedly tried, justify the status quo or their
>>>>> half-heartedness. Encourage them to focus on how to take the next
>>>>> steps. Don't let convenient "interpretations" of standards
>>>>> processes be an excuse for never starting, never finishing, or  
>>>>> never
>>>>> setting up processes that will work. Need more legal background?
>>>>> Find it. More technical information? Get it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't settle. The world has plenty of patent-encumbered media
>>>>> standards, plenty of proprietary solutions, and plenty of  
>>>>> standards
>>>>> in other domains that have figured out how to deliver royalty  
>>>>> free.
>>>>> But the world does not have enough royalty-free codec standards,  
>>>>> so
>>>>> this is the task that needs to be addressed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rob
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> codec mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> codec mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> codec mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> codec mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
>>
>