Re: [rtcweb] Proposal for H.263 baseline codec

Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> Mon, 02 April 2012 05:28 UTC

Return-Path: <silviapfeiffer1@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 E475A21F8717 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Apr 2012 22:28:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 J-zAm2hL9qas for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Apr 2012 22:28:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 283C721F8716 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Apr 2012 22:28:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ggmi1 with SMTP id i1so1136143ggm.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 01 Apr 2012 22:28:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=9y/vMqwR6aWKWpFRebUYvusJd7uqsP587WUtQ6zBg/8=; b=t/cPBE0qDs5cD3dyZtMoyX+AmMN71cXpj91MzwJ76bmGhCgT0B560qZ9SS7ggiCBft OVjpt7UzQKvyqT+7kaxYLOjaABeCMsgDBr5h7ebrqtgeG998GkQmhPnA1LnjNIdkqcAj PEKn/QwFbkP+COIPH70tr7FOaV7vlK/AC53jSnYYDE+bOmXALnHpvyRx5Bs+sKrSM0l9 l4j754k+Ef7YsJ7iJJdGHxluL02MlIUId5OjeUguMiAjaqh669yBZGW2pNSVcbeMyUX9 vPL0JCQ8DK7RJsdMK/p7+0G4VPpvzxQXfDQ27aPbtU3Nl71mS39a+mIVX5erkxb9ciu4 j72w==
Received: by 10.236.176.197 with SMTP id b45mr5736492yhm.72.1333344534746; Sun, 01 Apr 2012 22:28:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.147.99.3 with HTTP; Sun, 1 Apr 2012 22:28:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <00fe01cd1084$9c9fac90$d5df05b0$@packetizer.com>
References: <4F746163.5090506@hidayahonline.org> <CB9A367A.85338%stewe@stewe.org> <00fe01cd1084$9c9fac90$d5df05b0$@packetizer.com>
From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2012 22:28:34 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2nmhT2rGVOYG+usJUDnf4vKV5PWT2nxJuYCFRK3O_=p3Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposal for H.263 baseline codec
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: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 05:28:56 -0000

Note that H.264 isn't even under discussion here.

Also, my question on H.263 hasn't been answered yet. I do wonder about
the patent situation there!

Cheers,
Silvia.

On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote:
> Stephan,
>
>> The most commonly cited timeline for a widely in use technology to be
>> "save" from a patent viewpoint, based on equitable defenses such as laches
>> (in the US) is six years.  In some countries of significant size, this
>> time is longer, and in others, equitable defenses do not exist.  (Very
>> briefly, and perhaps incorrectly put, those equitable defenses allow a
>> defendant to argue successfully that a patent cannot be enforced as the
>> right holder knew that the patent claim was likely being infringed, and
>> did not enforce the patent.).
>
> Recall that Unisys forced people to pay royalties for using the GIF file
> format long after it became widely popular.  The company asserted IPR claims
> on GIF since it used a compression algorithm to which it acquired the
> rights, and it started doing so right near the end of the 20-year period
> during which a patent is considered valid.
>
> In short, I really do not think one should ever assume it might be safe to
> use any technology.
>
>> In addition, as I pointed out in the meeting, the use of a video codec
>> created by a body such as MPEG or ITU-T SG16 has the advantage of that the
>> patents of all participating players are available at least under
>> Reasonable and Non Discriminatory (RAND) terms.  This may sound like a Bad
>> Thing if you operate under a business model that prevents you to pay
>> anything for patent licenses, but it is surely a Good Thing if you are
>> willing to dish out a moderate amount of money for a license.  RAND
>> recently has gotten teeth, not so much in terms of the monetary
>> compensation aspect, but in terms of difficulty (if not unavailability) to
>> obtain injunctive relive, among others.  H.26x and the MPEG standards
>> benefit from RAND commitments, VP8, AFAIK, does not.
>
> I believe your point here is perhaps worth even more consideration.
>
> I really know nothing about the IPR that exists or might be claimed on VP8.
> That said, I know there has such an incredible amount of work by so many
> companies to produce H.264 that I would be utterly surprised to find that
> VP8 does not infringe on something.  All of the technology that went into
> H.264 represents only a subset of all of the IPR that exists in the video
> coding space.
>
> It's the rest of the IPR, a bunch of IPR owned by companies who actually
> have significant investment in video coding technologies, that I believe
> people should worry about.  Everyone who worked on H.264 did so as part of
> an open standards process, as you mention above.  They spent a lot of time
> and energy in the process, coming to an agreement to license the technology
> that went into H.264.  They did not agree to license technology that did not
> go into H.264.  So, if one of those participating companies were to
> subsequently sue over some IPR used in VP8, I would not dare call them a
> troll.
>
> Trolls always exist and may even lay claims to H.264, but I suspect it would
> be much harder for a troll to lay claim to H.264.  That codec spent years in
> development with input from tons of people.  If a troll were to come in and
> lay claim to some part of H.264, I suspect there would be several companies
> that would stand up and beat them down.  After all, a claim against H.264
> would not only present a problem for the defendant in a lawsuit, but would
> be an issue for every company with IPR on H.264.  Further, no matter what
> part of H.264 such a troll might decide to pick on, there are a number of
> world-class engineers who (as you indicated about H.263) could probably name
> the person or persons who contributed the section of text, algorithm,
> procedure, etc., all of which is covered with a known license.
>
> VP8 does not have the benefit of such significant peer review and
> collaboration, nor does it benefit from any IPR licensing agreements from
> legitimate companies holding tons of video coding-related IPR.
>
> Paul
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb