Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264

Year I over-interpreted. But it does recommend listing all known IPR issues
and that's a lot.
Silvia.
 On 24 Oct 2013 22:05, "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <
keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:

> "requires all IPR holders on a technology that is made part of an RFC to
> disclose"
>
> Is not what the document actually says.
>
> If you are going to attribute please attribute correctly.
>
> Regards
>
> Keith
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org
> > [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Silvia Pfeiffer
> > Sent: 23 October 2013 22:46
> > To: Basil Mohamed Gohar
> > Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Basil Mohamed Gohar
> > <basilgohar@librevideo.org> wrote:
> > > On 10/23/2013 04:55 PM, cowwoc wrote:
> > >> Harald,
> > >>
> > >>     I think it is premature to imply that VP8 is royalty
> > free. I have
> > >> nothing against the codec (it's great) but it's my
> > understanding that
> > >> Google can't guarantee that someone else won't exercise IPR rights
> > >> against VP8 in the future. The best we can say is that
> > H264 requires
> > >> royalties today and VP8 *might* require royalties in the
> > future. H264
> > >> has a slight advantage in this space in that we have
> > well-understood
> > >> licensing terms.
> > >>
> > >>     I just wanted to put that out there so there are no
> > confusions in
> > >> the future.
> > >>
> > >> Gili
> > >
> > > Actually, this is exactly the kind of FUD that has stifled the
> > > adoption of VP8 and, before it, Theora and Vorbis, as
> > > universally-available multimedia format.  It serves only to confuse
> > > the issue further, as I will explain below.
> > >
> > > For starters, there is no evidence whatsoever that there is
> > a viable
> > > IPR concern with VP8, but there exist baseless allegations.
> >  In fact,
> > > what little doubt that there might have been one was settled by the
> > > agreement signed between Google and MPEG-LA [1] a short while ago,
> > > which resulted in MPEG-LA withdrawing their attempt a
> > forming a patent
> > > pool for VP8 altogether.  An attempt, I might add, that had little
> > > public activity save for its initial announcement once VP8
> > was being
> > > concerned for international standards.  In fact, the extremely
> > > generous terms of the agreement lend credence to the fact
> > that there
> > > was little that existing that would have been enforceable.
> > >
> > > Furthermore, the fact that there is an existing licensing structure
> > > for
> > > H.264 give exactly zero assurances of protections from IPR claims,
> > > because not all licensors of H.264 technology are a member of the
> > > MPEG-LA patent pool agreement, and there have been numerous patent
> > > cases related to H.264 and other technologies thought to be
> > covered by
> > > RAND and FRAND terms.
> > >
> > > Finally, the current patent and IPR landscape, at least in
> > the US, and
> > > widely in other portions of the world, eliminates the
> > possibility of
> > > something *never* being under a patent threat, due to the
> > presence of
> > > patent trolls that actively wait for adoption as well the sheer
> > > magnitude of patents and the very ease with which patent
> > legislation
> > > can be brought up (including for those already "covered" by
> > existing
> > > patent pools, e.g., H.264).
> > >
> > > So, in actuality, H.264 holds no advantage over VP8 in this regard,
> > > and the claim that VP8 is a liability to use is not
> > evidenced by any
> > > actual unique tangible threat to date.
> > >
> > > [1] http://blog.webmproject.org/2013/03/vp8-and-mpeg-la.html
> >
> >
> > On top of all this, it seems to me that
> > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3979.txt requires all IPR holders
> > on a technology that is made part of an RFC to disclose their
> > IPR and sign a patent disclosure:
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3905 . I think this process is
> > trivial for VP8, but will require lengthy delays for sorting
> > out for H.264. In the interest of the Internet Community,
> > given that both codecs provide comparable quality at
> > comparable bitrates, we need to choose what is best for the
> > Internet community.
> > RFC3979 even states this explicitly:
> >
> > " In all matters of Intellectual Property Rights, the intent is to
> >    benefit the Internet community and the public at large, while
> >    respecting the legitimate rights of others."
> >
> > It seems clear that given that there is no substantial
> > technical difference between the two, given that the IRP
> > situation is so much cleaner for VP8, and that the only known
> > IPR holder for VP8 (ever after challenges) is Google who are
> > providing a perpetual royalty-free license
> > (http://www.webmproject.org/license/bitstream/), the
> > preference of the Internet community must clearly lie with VP8.
> >
> > I would be surprised if the IESG - who has to consider IPR
> > rights when approving an RFC for publication - wouldn't have
> > to overrule any decision made by this WG to choose H.264 over VP8.
> >
> > RFC3979 states:
> > " In general, IETF working groups prefer technologies with no
> > known IPR
> >    claims or, for technologies with claims against them, an offer of
> >    royalty-free licensing."
> >
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Silvia.
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtcweb mailing list
> > rtcweb@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> >