Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)

Ron, 

I don't think BlackBerry nor BlackBerry employees will ever make the statements you implied.
Our bottom line in this discussion is a balance between technical sense, QoS, interoperability and cost control.
Hence we have stated that we are OK with codecs that are already supported across various platforms (e.g. H.263, H.264). That solves both costs and interoperability concerns.
It takes far too long to remove a codec from a platform when it is once installed. (e.g. H261)
There is little reasons to create legacy services with VP8 as it is going to be soon obsoleted by VP9. There is even less reasons to mandate VP8 codec across platforms (soon obsolete, too long to remove from a platform, does not have much technical values over H.264).

I share the concerns from many in this list, that we may depend on browser vendors implementations of H.264 and VP8 and that we are not achieving consensus on this most critical category.

I am not against adding codecs to platforms/services/apps nor to specifications. 
It makes sense when it improves the quality of service (e.g. scalable, SEI etc) /compression ratio (e.g. H.265, VP9) or when it addressed a wider ecosystem that is currently not addressed. (e.g. opus).

In the current situation, I don't see VP8 as an answer to any of the above considerations.

Despite that, I have proposed an alternative solution that combined API availability and WebRTC categories. (no that was not discussed in this form before) I believe that proposal was/is the best way to introduce new codecs (VP8/H264 now; e.g. Dalaa VP9 and H265 later)in a reasonable manner and would have avoided upfront "no, we can't do this".

I hope this clarifies that the Type3 declaration from Nokia is far to be the only concern.
Finally, if VP8 is required, would RF help?
Yes, as it would reduce cost and as it is the main claim that proponent(s) intend(s) to deliver on. I see that as a possible advantage of VP8 over H.264 which, in my opinion, offers more flexibilities (profiles, functions etc). 

Gaëlle

-----Original Message-----
From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ron
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 4:05 AM
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)

On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 05:16:08AM +0000, Andrew Allen wrote:
> 
> > From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Roman 
> > Shpount
> > Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2014 11:41 AM
> > To: rtcweb@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI 
> > (again, still, sorry)
> > 
> > There were a lot of arguments here about the Nokia IPR declaration 
> > regarding VP8. IANAL, but typically there is a very simple way to 
> > determine the validity of the IPR claim. It comes down to one simple 
> > question -- Have the party claiming IPR violation filed the law suite?
> > If not, their claims most likely do not justify the court filing 
> > fees in their own eyes. Mozilla and Google have been shipping 
> > browsers with
> > VP8 codec support for several years already and Nokia did not do a 
> > single thing to stop this. If Nokia is serious about their IPR 
> > claims, they should take the alleged violators to court. At least 
> > this way there is going to be a definitive decision regarding the 
> > validity of these claims.
> 
> I don’t think that proves anything.
> 
> Any basic military doctrine on the tactics of ambush is going to state 
> that you don’t go after the lead elements especially if they are the 
> stronger armored elements that are most capable of beating back the 
> attack – no you bide your time and wait until the follow on troops 
> that are far less able to withstand the attack come along and then 
> mount your assault – ripping them to shreads and thus leaving those 
> more powerful lead elements cut off and surrounded with no path to 
> retreat!

While that's a very interesting analysis of the kind of panicked thought processes going on among the rearguard participants from blackberry, it's not clear to me exactly what relevance you think it has here.

Are you saying that Nokia is not only bad at business, bad at keeping their talented staff, and bad at community relations - but that they also suck at military strategy too?

Because they launched their attack, and got laughed out of court ...

http://blog.webmproject.org/2013/08/good-news-from-germany.html

Maybe you are suggesting that was just a clever ruse, and rather than using their actually valid patent, they wasted all that money on lawyers to simply feint with the weakest one they could find?

In which case I hope for their sake that they've kept their good lawyers in reserve for when their shareholders come wanting to rip them to shreds!

  If ignorant both of your enemy and yourself,
  you are certain to be in peril.
    -- Sun Tzu

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