Re: [rtcweb] Counting NOs (Re: Straw Poll on Nokia mincing)

[Ron <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 04:28:35PM -0800, David Singer wrote:
> > But at least it satisfies (c).
> > [MR] you had written in a previous post that the WG is looking for options
> > (a) and (b), and thus the reference to that comment here - very unsporting
> > to simply shift the goal posts. 
> 
> I am not moving them, just pointing out how much further outside them one
> choice is.  If H.264 is problematic because it is licensable but only for
> fee, something that has a ‘no license’ declaration is further away still.

So by that logic, something with consensus of no IPR problems, that has a
tiny memory footprint, is blazingly fast on modern hardware, and will
give you better battery life than the hardest hardware acceleration on
mobile devices, should be a total no-brainer to solve the deadlock.
(If you accept this "no licence" claim actually creates one)

Right?


> Microsoft, IIRC, bought part of the company and rights to their entire
> patent portfolio.  This does not seem a route that can be generally
> followed.

You say that like there won't be another part of them for sale at an
even more heavily discounted price next year!


  Cautiously Optimistic,
  Ron