Re: [rtcweb] H.261

[cowwoc <[e-mail]>]

+1. There seems to be a lot of hand waving when it comes to H.264. Some 
very concrete questions are going unanswered.

Gili

On 27/11/2013 11:25 AM, Ron wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 03:30:55AM +0000, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
>> I do get they MPEG LA terms can be confusing at times
>> but lots of people have figured it out.
> I can only assume that you mean this in the same sense that "lots of people"
> have "figured out" those click through EULA conditions that don't actually
> allow them to do the things they'll be doing but obviously aren't intended
> to be read since a 50 page document is presented in a 4 line scroll box with
> no button that says "click here to send this to your lawyer". [1]
>
> Like the ones that say your TV can report everything that's ever watched on
> it to the manufacturer, even after you click the Don't Do That button. [2]
>
> Or in the same sense that they drive their motor vehicles without complying
> with their legal obligation to keep a bale of hay in the trunk or have some
> person walk in front at all times waving a flag.
>
>
> A licence that says "we'll take your money, but we can't actually grant you
> the rights to use this since we don't own or control them - we'll just sort
> of promise that WE won't drag you through the courts, in exchange for being
> able to track exactly how profitable your business is" -- isn't a licence at
> all.  It's a protection racket.  With a dash of industrial espionage thrown
> in for good measure.
>
> This isn't something we should be booby trapping IETF standards with.
>
> The IETF has disclosure rules that are aimed at avoiding, so much as is
> possible, this sort of Don't ask Don't tell nonsense.  And yet we *still*
> don't have disclosures from the H.264 IPR holders that *are* present here
> for the use of H.264 in this standard.  Despite them having core dumped
> their IPR restrictions on alternative proposals.
>
> How can we possibly take mandating that technology seriously in this light?
>
> That alone should already rule this out from consideration.
>
>
>> If people have questions about specific use case I'm glad to try and get
>> them answers.
> The specific question about how the Cisco offer resolves the problem of
> MPEG LA not being the only holder of IPR that would need to be licenced
> has so far met with deafening silence.
>
> Glad answers to that would certainly be nice.
>
> People keep making claims about that offer "solving everything", which
> can't possibly be true unless you pretend those other licence holders
> don't exist.
>
> By comparison, Google at least has shown that it is *very* willing to
> do whatever is necessary to ensure that the licence and IPR of VP8 is
> very unambiguously exactly as they claim it to be.
>
> That seems a lot more reassuring than the state of denial that has
> surrounded promoting H.264.  First pretending the IPR wasn't a problem,
> then pretending they could buy us all free tickets, then claiming they
> "really wished there was a solution with no IPR burden", then rejecting
> that solution when it was actually presented as a compromise.
>
> Then pushing for getting the IETF to vote ...
>
> The number of dimensions in which we'd have to disconnect from reality
> to make this proposal acceptable makes even string theory start to look
> well grounded.
>
>    Ron
>
>
> [1] http://i.imgur.com/m0sQKZI.jpg
>
> [2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25042563
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb