Re: [rtcweb] Discussion on codec choices from a developer who doesn't come to IETF

"David Benham (dbenham)" <> Tue, 08 May 2012 16:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D606B21F8567 for <>; Tue, 8 May 2012 09:37:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RNF13kgHHiBS for <>; Tue, 8 May 2012 09:37:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F20121F8564 for <>; Tue, 8 May 2012 09:37:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=9081; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1336495025; x=1337704625; h=mime-version:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: references:from:to; bh=VzLUfOzK0/Rsf8Wjcvwtm9tM6a3EiFwfPvvImVWTMso=; b=BhDVX5e0uPufZa72LPZK+N4142KO1SA+cqvdWCL5Qg5+N9qhwVM/i3kI j+8doNs9LgWM18V4bcRZeY0T3tCPxi8ows9Vs1vPXYLjF11ul14uWPMqQ 5TBvL8xE030hqvin1OHFTYKE1Wa0u1Ni2pFCnH50HBqAKQidA5nHNsLJ6 U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.75,552,1330905600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="43983633"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 08 May 2012 16:37:00 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q48GaxF6002002; Tue, 8 May 2012 16:37:00 GMT
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 8 May 2012 09:36:58 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CD2D38.C93C3173"
Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 09:36:54 -0700
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Discussion on codec choices from a developer who doesn't come to IETF
Thread-Index: Ac0tOL7xqlF9SWhCSZ2t6CVbf9DIRA==
References: <> <>
From: "David Benham (dbenham)" <>
To: Stephan Wenger <>,
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 May 2012 16:36:58.0659 (UTC) FILETIME=[C98E7F30:01CD2D38]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Discussion on codec choices from a developer who doesn't come to IETF
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 16:37:07 -0000


Many companies shipping in high volume pay the annual cap and have a
marginal cost at or below 10c each and the low volumes (<100K) are free
as noted.       That leaves non-profits (or have no workable freemium
model) shipping in the millions to be about the only segment with an


From: Stephan Wenger [] 
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 12:09 PM
To: Dean Willis; Lorenzo Miniero
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Discussion on codec choices from a developer who
doesn't come to IETF



From: Dean Willis <>
Date: Friday, 4 May, 2012 16:10 



	I am more worried about the guy implementing a WebRTC security
camera that uses an embedded Linux kernel and a software video encoder.
Each unit might "produce" video 24x7. But there is no MPEG-LA licensed
browser or OS or encoder chip to fall back on. The whole product might
sell for less than it might cost him to license the codec.

Really?  The MPEG-LA license terms for one encoder/decoder: $0 for the
first 100,000 units per year.  $0.20 for the next several millions,
after that $0.10 until the cap is reached.  And, the MPEG-LA license is
"take it or leave it" (at least for small fish like your hypothetical
camera guy), so even the lawyer cost for review should be minimal.


No, I continue to believe that the MPEG-LA license is not a hurdle for
anyone but those giving stuff away for free, or having a business model
that disallows them to pay licensing fees.  It's the patents not covered
by that license that you may worry about.