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

[Eric Burger <[e-mail]>]

If the goal is to ensure we do not produce anything for ten years,  
sure, let us form task groups with tens of members to research all of  
the patent literature, technical literature, and press materials;  
catalog the information; and come to written, published, and peer- 
reviewed expert opinion, we MIGHT have a near guarantee of a Royalty  
Free codec. That will cost the industry at least USD 75M (average 50  
people, average cost of US$ 150,000/year, 10 years). Since most of the  
participants have day jobs or are consultants paid by corporations,  
well run companies would say $10M in royalties is a bargain. With  
these numbers, the intellectual property system works, and the world  
is better off paying inventors royalties.

If the goal is to have a reasonable chance of producing a royalty free  
codec in the next three years, then I would offer the proposed charter  
has a high chance of success. Use codecs that are known to have no  
asserted IPR, use codecs that are older than 20 years old, and use  
codecs that have been out for a few years that no one has asserted  
rights against, and we have a reasonable expectation the result will  
be royalty free.


On Nov 11, 2009, at 12:07 PM, Rob Glidden wrote:

> Eric:
>
> Perhaps you would be willing to elaborate?
>
> Rob
>
> Eric Burger wrote:
>> If I'm not mistaken, do you not have legal training? What you ask  
>> for is just not possible with our legal system in the U.S. or the  
>> WIPO, either.
>>
>> I take that back, and this is why I rewrote the draft charter to  
>> place a preference on technologies that are at least 20 years old.  
>> That guarantees that any extant IPR has expired, even if we are not  
>> aware of it.
>>
>> Rather than asking for perfection, I think the industry will be OK  
>> with good enough. Unless your goal is to kill this work. In that  
>> case, rallying people for royalty free only will ensure the  
>> engineer's companies will prevent them from doing any work.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Nov 11, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Rob Glidden wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>
>>
>