Re: [rtcweb] (resend) RE: Draft agenda for RTCWeb session 2 at IETF85

[Stephan Wenger <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ron,
A few comments inline.

On 10.26.2012 08:15 , "Ron" <[e-mail]> wrote:

[...]
>
>"I cannot use it because people are still fighting in the courts
> over who actually has a licence and how much one should cost",
>is more than a technical problem, it's a real and present, and
>apparently quite enduring danger haunting H.264, and not just for
>the people otherwise ineligible to get a licence for it at all.
>
>Am I forgetting one, or is it really now the most litigated codec
>in the history of all codecs?

Oh yes, you are forgetting MPEG-2.  Out of the top of my head, I can
recollect four high profile lawsuits regarding MPEG-2 video essential
claims.  I believe there have been several more, and enforcement is going
on even in the most recent past (the Nero antitrust dispute being the most
prominent one in the last three years).

Many of those MPEG-2 related lawsuits were the result of enforcement
action in an emerging licensing ecosystem that is based on royalties.  I'm
not aware of any video codec patent disputes, nor of any significant
royalty-bearing licensing deals in the video codec space, before the
advent of MPEG-2, formation of the related MPEG-LA pool, and the resulting
wave of litigation.

While there have been a few more, the single most prominent H.264 related
lawsuit today is the action brought by Motorola/google against a number of
companies that could be viewed as threatening the Android ecosystem.
(Most of the older stuff is straightforward enforcement in a settled
royalty-bearing ecosystem.)  The Motorola lawsuits are IMO strategic
disputes, and the use of video codec related patents is just a means to
achieve a higher goal: keep the Android system competitive.

Also, with respect to the Motorola lawsuits, it is my understanding that
the patent claims being litigated are related to interlace technologies
and, therefore, are not relevant to the practice of constrained baseline.
I'm not going to discuss this further; those interested may want to
consult the web or, much better, your trusted patent lawyer.

[...]

Stephan

>But perhaps you have some other list of pros and cons that
>somehow changes that balance?  I'd certainly like to see a
>concise summary of what I'm supposedly missing that means
>VP8 isn't technically the no-brainer choice to make here,
>in pretty much every respect that has been discussed.
>
>
>> I really think there's more important things to discuss and specify.
>
>I agree.  But until we get past the question of MTI codecs that
>will ensure interoperability, the risk remains that those things
>will just be Rearranging The Deck Chairs.  Again.
>
>So let's get some consensus on a summary of pros and cons for
>each, that will give us some reasoned basis to back whatever
>decision we do arrive at on this, and let us really move on.
>
> Double Hulled and Hopeful This Time,
> Ron
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>