Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal

Ron <ron@debian.org> Tue, 11 November 2014 06:02 UTC

Return-Path: <ron@debian.org>
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 126681AD44C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 22:02:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 OkUAnZ6OELVX for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 22:02:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.129]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8253E1ACD85 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 22:02:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppp14-2-63-74.lns21.adl2.internode.on.net (HELO mailservice.shelbyville.oz) ([14.2.63.74]) by ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 11 Nov 2014 16:32:09 +1030
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailservice.shelbyville.oz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58DCBFFEDC for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 16:32:08 +1030 (CST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mailservice.shelbyville.oz
Received: from mailservice.shelbyville.oz ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mailservice.shelbyville.oz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id AL6EroOkVxDh for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 16:32:07 +1030 (CST)
Received: from hex.shelbyville.oz (hex.shelbyville.oz [192.168.1.6]) by mailservice.shelbyville.oz (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D7FEFFDBC for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 16:32:07 +1030 (CST)
Received: by hex.shelbyville.oz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1A45E80470; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 16:32:07 +1030 (ACDT)
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 16:32:07 +1030
From: Ron <ron@debian.org>
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20141111060206.GT8092@hex.shelbyville.oz>
References: <54601E19.8080203@nostrum.com> <176316D6-D685-45F4-AA8E-A4F07521CAE4@matthew.at> <CAD5OKxvyKRBwSdn3GM7sL3iRmYRvyLRRVFwedD5GJgYfsDVM2Q@mail.gmail.com> <54619EC4.2070802@matthew.at>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <54619EC4.2070802@matthew.at>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/P4a5SiHUjSMOG4EjIvOJqANbbIQ
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal
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: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 06:02:14 -0000

On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 09:29:40PM -0800, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> On 11/10/2014 4:25 PM, Roman Shpount wrote:
> >On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at
> ><mailto:matthew@matthew.at>> wrote:
> >
> >    We may be tired of this, but it isn't like we have a royalty-free
> >    option for H.264 MPEG-LA or IP risk indemnification from Google..
> >    So what's changed for the browser makers?
> >
> >
> >May be I am missing something, but MPEG-LA does not provide IP risk
> >indemnification for H.264. All they sell is a very limited license to the
> >patent pool from the group members.
> 
> I am not my employer's lawyers, nor am I the lawyers for any of the other
> folks who've spoken up about the IPR issues over the years. But these folks
> apparently feel that there's something different between "specification
> developed in an open standards process" + "licenses to listed IPR available
> from patent pool" and "some code Google says is free" for whatever reasons
> they have.

Something other than "we invested a lot in being a member of that pool, and
a whole bunch more in buying a company with lots of H.264 patents which
remain outside of it"?

> You'd have to ask them to see why that's different.

If you do that, ask them what's different about bottled water too.
I've always been curious about that.