Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb

Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Thu, 28 November 2013 22:53 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FF791ADF64 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:53:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zUZOKgUtU6Aj for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:53:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-x229.google.com (mail-lb0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF1CB1ADF76 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:53:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f169.google.com with SMTP id y6so6531049lbh.14 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:53:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=YsLr0BMA2nvxKBu8P/cOSIqf6GtwIjwQDD9O3DVc8Kg=; b=lr8ZMe33tzI5W/vd2Epez5S3ZN8l1/S9nQ5YqhaE+8JYW4WRM1rM4SmYQAk/SMnNmH 8TbOzjf99UE1ky0uFk9xtnyXZSs03BkVc1XxSW+E41/6Vm/tERMl4H11G2yUJ46lxiH+ tO55PvmKAVCa+oUC0KIo3MMxf31kVDnlfRUT5FmBH7syTtnMxUIvY5H+5EwiyV3SU9py 1JjqeVnC/7EXRIEiJM2YvWkkJk/M7Bs9zg7w2mzDUtFR6is0EDYT09UtS78KA73yo6PR OFnzjdknn6MkGe+TQzD5TMaSY+K9MVIwdxPa0BoQLln6LZMX7yFJxZ1rRdeKj/RV7n4l p8CA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.121.105 with SMTP id lj9mr1512474lab.6.1385679192099; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:53:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.37.172 with HTTP; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:53:12 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAKHUCzwZm1E5uhwRhX2LJYdAVFWH0gzX0vx70bHje7SvDK22uA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <52970A36.5010503@ericsson.com> <529719D7.9020109@cisco.com> <CAKHUCzxjwMXzy6=9WdRPRRCunKsLm9JFuo6JavMtEC7Tbov8TQ@mail.gmail.com> <529755F6.4050404@dcrocker.net> <CAKHUCzwZm1E5uhwRhX2LJYdAVFWH0gzX0vx70bHje7SvDK22uA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 17:53:12 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwgnPYXsA1GjW9x=x_7e4=yXb8cmVDXOzPX2DaTAcyQDeg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0122771604932804ec4494c1"
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, rtcweb-chairs@tools.ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 22:53:16 -0000

On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:
>
>> BTW, as distasteful as it might be, is there a reason that making /both/
>> MTI would not work?
>>
>
> Speaking as a third party to this, so I may have misinterpreted, then yes.
> My (possibly simplistic and/or plain wrong) summary follows:
>
> The problem appears to be largely driven by actual IPR issues surrounding
> H.264, though it has strong hardware support particularly within the
> incumbent VOIP market players.
>
> My impression is that VP8 is largely (though not entirely) thought to be
> free from IPR headaches, but lacks the hardware support that is baked into
> the market. [I have seen exchanges suggesting that other people suspect VP8
> of having IPR issues, but nobody I've seen in the posts I've reviewed has
> claimed that position for themselves, so it's not clear to me how IPR-free
> it's really perceived]
>

The issues for vendors are litigation risk and cost.

If you are a commercial vendor with an existing H.264 license there is no
cost and no litigation risk for using that codec but the licenses you have
acquired are almost certainly specific to H.264. So using any other CODEC
is likely to create a substantial liability risk.

If you are an open source provider without a H.264 license the situation is
very different.

This is not going to be settled by a vote. I am not speaking for any of the
parties but if I did have a dog in this fight I would have my corporate
counsel write a letter to the WG stating that we are not going to be bound
on the WG decision in this case.


We are talking about a decision that could result in a hundred million
dollar lawsuit. The issue is not who is going to write code but who is
likely to get hit with a suit.


-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/