Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue
"cb.list6" <cb.list6@gmail.com> Thu, 24 October 2013 23:13 UTC
Return-Path: <cb.list6@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5ADA11E8274 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 16:13:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2FBY3AkyLHK0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 16:13:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x229.google.com (mail-wg0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6A2311E825F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 16:13:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f41.google.com with SMTP id b13so251912wgh.0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 16:13:40 -0700 (PDT)
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=pPO+tPtMD/LqQjyV1y6CpBJrwUyd4+J2NrF0kKh9nfg=; b=CkXZBsi7bzIafLGKl5egz7X/Pxl09m/F9tfwOllDulQy/fFHtKGlcvfX7UorgmzHhd EMvFr+oSDLp7rZil0SsE/6xQobUViAwnSpZHL2WcdhLFFXPmTk2OxQSlvIf25cwC1Nz/ LEdOsPrr94Sd8LrCSmgT0LTgAh7hD6axBYNN8RjI2O4XlhenCw2UlLkcqH1ECN/7icf+ WfPcyvLQIIe26jH32uuUWFC8HqcGShdgDRjeKYTzXcz4ZGD8SIkHAgfHhYapzku3xKJA 6M60ixDJ/MZWoyQMGTQgenQVkxDiFG3UF9fxVxrtd+IzAaTdhkyOXMQ80FOqtT2Sz9aa 5OdQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.108.103 with SMTP id hj7mr2435345wib.49.1382656420352; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 16:13:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.217.114.137 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 16:13:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.217.114.137 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 16:13:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <52698758.5040404@bbs.darktech.org>
References: <52681A96.2020904@alvestrand.no> <526826AF.5030308@librevideo.org> <52690090.2050609@alvestrand.no> <BBE9739C2C302046BD34B42713A1E2A22DFCD683@ESESSMB105.ericsson.se> <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A4843D45DC08@TK5EX14MBXC266.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <5269764C.4030801@librevideo.org> <52698758.5040404@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 16:13:40 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD6AjGSb5syh0HO+89fH8cGZ0zqM6gYLPj3aeTRQLN0u8W4cSg@mail.gmail.com>
From: "cb.list6" <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8f3ba1c9c81f4404e984c85f"
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 23:13:43 -0000
On Oct 24, 2013 1:47 PM, "cowwoc" <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote: > > On 24/10/2013 3:34 PM, Basil Mohamed Gohar wrote: >> >> On 10/24/2013 12:02 PM, Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE) wrote: >>> >>> On the IPR issue, Google reached agreement with 11 patent holders. There >>> are at least 31 companies in the MPEG-LA H.264 pool. There is >>> considerable technical overlap between VP8 and H.264. >>> >>> My employer is one of those in the H.264 pool, and wasn’t one of the 11 >>> companies Google reached an agreement with. >>> >>> Draw your own conclusions and take your own IPR risks. >>> >>> Personally I’d rather the IPR devil I know vs. the IPR devil I don’t know. >>> >>> Google could fix this for most potential users (through indemnification, >>> similar to what Oracle offers its Linux licensees) but has chosen not >>> to. You can draw your own conclusion there, too. >>> >>> Matthew Kaufman >> >> There are no conclusions to draw due to lack of sufficient evidence for >> anything actionable. IPR FUD has delayed the adoption of many free, >> non-royalty-bearing formats for too long. And, again, the IPR "devil we >> know" is meaningless, because there are still IP litigation threats even >> for H.264, MP3, and many other patented, royalty-bearing formats. >> >> So, it contributes little to nothing to the discussion on IPR grounds if >> a substantial declaration, as Ted has advised, is not taken, and such >> claims should really be discounted in any serious consideration when >> weighing options between formats. > > > I would like to point out that we still have the option of mandating the use of an older codec whose IPR has expired (and let clients upgrade to VP8 or H264 as they fit). > > But if the community rejects this approach, then I agree that this should not hold back the use of VP8. > > Gili > There is no holding back vp8, it can always be negotiated. My guidance is no mti. I, for one, am tired of the gang-land ipr turf wars and posturing. This argument is all about ipr, and ietf is explicitly setup to punt on all ipr issue because they are hard. Any layperson can see there is no concensus to be found. That's why we designed for codec negotiating and negotiating away from failure is left for implementation CB > _______________________________________________ > rtcweb mailing list > rtcweb@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Monty Montgomery
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Silvia Pfeiffer
- [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Silvia Pfeiffer
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Markus.Isomaki
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Bo Burman
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Bo Burman
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Bo Burman
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Silvia Pfeiffer
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Silvia Pfeiffer
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue cb.list6
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Karl Stahl
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Markus.Isomaki
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Markus.Isomaki
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Markus.Isomaki
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Jeremy Laurenson (jlaurens)
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue cb.list6
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue cb.list6
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Monty Montgomery
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Jeremy Laurenson (jlaurens)
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Karl Stahl
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue tim panton
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Victor Pascual Avila
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Monty Montgomery
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Jack Moffitt
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Jeremy Laurenson (jlaurens)
- Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue Basil Mohamed Gohar