Re: [rtcweb] Straw Poll on Nokia mincing

Mohammed Raad <mohammedsraad@raadtech.com> Thu, 19 December 2013 06:44 UTC

Return-Path: <mohammedsraad@raadtech.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50B151AE0D3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Dec 2013 22:44:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dLKzFcA-UQpK for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Dec 2013 22:44:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-f47.google.com (mail-wg0-f47.google.com [74.125.82.47]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4FCB1AE0B5 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Dec 2013 22:44:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f47.google.com with SMTP id n12so620777wgh.2 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Dec 2013 22:44:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=cW3WYismcopNdzvqxlMrH9SNeZBunOUXqQy832c2+SU=; b=mFPC/cyJdaABaNhDbthfqo9cq9VUCji0UHLEUX7HasPrAYlSnpw2IFHXrilnXDSA6Y uf56rBB7/sn7VryfGYbNXQwV03Smuvud+7YCxC3DSMitwNddDZzzDUjDkch0nHglNlFw 2mUktpMzFCVZ9wq6NL9a1NNKWpVEbsXkYFwgrO36GmB/8ZFo7pET4LIcpjbDrdrHuc59 EH2VnfLsE5Oaech+QA9OxedvrI5yVzPZQQw5J9oL0iD5PuyXmBS2KJxiMq0eglxpg8FR OxgO6Cqcr+zk4RNtGvwhRvS/9fulis3yJQjwAGVQb21IaUKzrPvxi0aDbG6lEPrz29YG +K+w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQluF2bXH7qvWWD7/jbZ/C1tYmpU3kn6FoyZ5GWJDgFKeiQHyN/o0xFW26KGvLIrMN2QBeKK
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.205.205 with SMTP id li13mr1339908wic.12.1387435491640; Wed, 18 Dec 2013 22:44:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.179.166 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Dec 2013 22:44:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.179.166 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Dec 2013 22:44:51 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20131219033000.GK3245@audi.shelbyville.oz>
References: <CA+E6M0m5O1OqjBm13qNoRAtYZKwOs+4fs3evyO2VuuO1uqQ5eA@mail.gmail.com> <CED773F0.2D6AA%stewe@stewe.org> <20131219033000.GK3245@audi.shelbyville.oz>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 17:44:51 +1100
Message-ID: <CA+E6M0n9frSRbbrXh=jczQETX13HX6LDGUCq2P4=6voXx93ZVA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mohammed Raad <mohammedsraad@raadtech.com>
To: Ron <ron@debian.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c25a9ea0e32b04eddd7fc4"
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Straw Poll on Nokia mincing
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 19 Dec 2013 06:44:56 -0000

Correct on changing the subject line, this really started as a
clarification question and then grew, sorry.

What is relevant to the straw poll thread is that we should have a correct
summary of where the IPR situation really is.

It has been pointed out that the MTI should satisfy options a) or b) on the
ietf declaration form. As matters stand AVC/h264 does not satisfy that,
this has been made very clear through the ISO process. On the other hand,
VP8 has so far withstood court challenges, as you point out - something
which AVC could not BTW - and the technology owning entities willing to
license VP8 relevant technology under the required royalty free terms has
grown significantly during the past year.

It would seem very clear that the codec that is closer to the royalty free
ideal situation is VP8.

As such, it is surprising to see AVC proponents opposing the adoption of
VP8, even as one of two MTI codecs - something that VP8 proponents appear
to be saying is acceptable - based on IPR arguments.

If members of this WG wish to move towards a compromise that allows webrtc
to fulfill the potential that it has then this is their opportunity. I
certainly encourage them to take this opportunity.

Mohammed

Please people, changing the subject for side discussions like the Chairs
requested isn't rocket science ...


On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:47:14PM +0000, Stephan Wenger wrote:
> My gosh.  Nokia has people at the IETF, and they made statements
> and have not minced words.

They also have people making statements in the courts, where they
seem to be getting, well, thoroughly minced!


The interesting question isn't Nokia's intention here, I don't think
anyone seriously doubts what it is.  The interesting questions are
twofold:

 a) Do they even have the slimmest leg to stand on with their claims
    against VP8?  There's so far no supporting evidence to say that
    they do, and plenty stacking up against them.

 b) Given their stubborn refusal to make any declaration about their
    intentions or IPR for H.264 here, does anybody have even the
    slightest idea what their terms are for licencing the Cisco blob?


Meritorious or meretricious, the devil is in such little details.

  Ron


_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb