Re: [rtcweb] Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives

[David Singer <[e-mail]>]

I just go by what is formally declared.  If you think Nokia can or will make a clearer, or more nuanced, or different, declaration, then of course you may encourage them to do so.

As it stands, I am reading what is written.

For *MTI* we are asking for a clear (a) or (b) anyway:

>         • a) No License Required for Implementers.
>         •  b) Royalty-Free, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory License to All Implementers.

And it’s clear we don’t have them in this case.  Or do you imagine something other than (a) or (b) that would formally satisfy the MTI need?

On Dec 18, 2013, at 13:48 , Mohammed Raad <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I think that there is a relevant, although subtle, point here.
> 
> This declaration has been used repeatedly as "evidence" that VP8 has a problematic IPR situation. But has the question of whether or not Nokia is willing to license under terms it considers suitable been asked and/or answered?
> 
> Afterall, unlike AVC/h264, VP8 has an active sponsoring entity that has put in the effort and resources to secure a licensing agreement from multiple other parties that offers the relevant technology under royalty free terms.
> 
> Of course such an approach would not be suitable if Nokia is unwilling to license under any terms. If that is the case though, it is important for this WG to be aware of that situation, to make sure an informed decision is being made.
> 
> Mohammed
> 
> On Dec 19, 2013 8:01 AM, "David Singer" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> I guess you may be formally right;  I was being terse.  But looking at the options:
> 
>         • a) No License Required for Implementers.
>         •  b) Royalty-Free, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory License to All Implementers.
>         •  c) Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory License to All Implementers with Possible Royalty/Fee.
>         •  d) Licensing Declaration to be Provided Later (implies a willingness to commit to the provisions of a), b), or c) above to all implementers; otherwise, the next option "Unwilling to Commit to the Provisions of a), b), or c) Above". - must be selected).
>         •  e) Unwilling to Commit to the Provisions of a), b), or c) Above.
>         •  f) See Text Below for Licensing Declaration.
> 
> They did not offer (d) or (f), either of which would suggest that some other license was available or forthcoming.  So, we’re left with the possibility that there is a future license which is not RF, not RAND. I suppose that’s logically possible, but whether a hypothetical future license that is unreasonable, or discriminatory, or both, is useful to this discussion I am less sure.
> 
> I am not a lawyer, and I agree I was being terse.
> 
> 
> On Dec 18, 2013, at 12:56 , Mohammed Raad <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > David,
> >
> > Is it your understanding that Nokia is unwilling to license the patents they have listed in the declaration that you refer to and so you repeatedly say that VP8 has unlicensable IPR?
> >
> > My understanding is that they are not willing to license under the options provided on the form, not that they are unwilling to license.
> >
> > Mohammed
> >
> > On Dec 19, 2013 6:31 AM, "David Singer" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > I should say I only put in the ‘negative’ statements here, not reasons to say ‘yes’, since only objections were requested.
> >
> > For example, why is Motion JPEG OK but 261 not?  Because MJPEG is I-frame only, one can send reasonable visual quality at low frame rates, and the user is aware of the other end and that the system works, and systems all have JPEG implemented today, and the RTP format is not complex to add.
> >
> > On Dec 18, 2013, at 8:51 , David Singer <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > >> 1..        All entities MUST support H.264
> > >>        a.         Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
> > >
> > > Yes
> > >
> > >>        b.         Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
> > >> 2..        All entities MUST support VP8
> > >>        a.         Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
> > >
> > > No
> > >
> > >>        b.         Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
> > >
> > > VP8 has a formal declaration of unlicensable IPR, https://ietf.org/ipr/2035/  .
> > >
> > >> 3.         All entities MUST support both H.264 and VP8
> > >>        a.         Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
> > >
> > > No
> > >
> > >>        b.         Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
> > >
> > > VP8 has a formal declaration of unlicensable IPR, https://ietf.org/ipr/2035/  .
> > >
> > >> 4.         Browsers MUST support both H.264 and VP8, other entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8
> > >>        a.         Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
> > >
> > > No
> > >
> > >>        b.         Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
> > >
> > > VP8 has a formal declaration of unlicensable IPR, https://ietf.org/ipr/2035/  .
> > > Also, ‘browser’ is ill-defined, and it is not correct to try to divide the world in this way.
> > >
> > >> 5.         All entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8
> > >>        a.         Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
> > >
> > > Yes
> > >
> > >>        b.         Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
> > >> 6.         All entities MUST support H.261
> > >>        a.         Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
> > >
> > > No
> > >
> > >>        b.         Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
> > >
> > > Few have H.261 implemented any more, and those that don’t, will not implement to comply with this requirement.
> > >
> > >> 7.         There is no MTI video codec
> > >>        a.         Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
> > >
> > > Acceptable.
> > >
> > >>        b.         Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
> > >> 8.         All entities MUST support H.261 and all entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8
> > >>        a.         Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
> > >
> > > No
> > >
> > >>        b.         Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
> > >
> > > Few have H.261 implemented any more, and those that don’t, will not implement to comply with this requirement.
> > >
> > >> 9.         All entities MUST support Theora
> > >>        a.         Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
> > >
> > > No
> > >
> > >>        b.         Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
> > >
> > > Theora is not ‘current’, it has an unclear license situation, is poorly supported in hardware.
> > >
> > >> 10.       All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, H.261}
> > >>        a.         Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
> > >
> > > No
> > >
> > >>        b.         Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
> > >
> > > Few have H.261 implemented any more, and those that don’t, will not implement to comply with this requirement.
> > > VP8 has a formal declaration of unlicensable IPR, https://ietf.org/ipr/2035/  .
> > >
> > >> 11.       All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, H.263}
> > >>        a.         Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
> > >
> > > Yes
> > >
> > >>        b.         Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
> > >> 12.       All entities MUST support decoding using both H.264 and VP8, and MUST support encoding using at least one of H.264 or VP8
> > >>        a.         Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
> > >
> > > No
> > >
> > >>        b.         Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
> > >
> > > VP8 has a formal declaration of unlicensable IPR, https://ietf.org/ipr/2035/  .
> > >
> > >> 13.       All entities MUST support H.263
> > >>        a.         Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
> > >
> > > Yes
> > >
> > >>        b.         Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
> > >> 14.       All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, Theora}
> > >>        a.         Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
> > >
> > > No
> > >
> > >>        b.         Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
> > >
> > > Theora is not ‘current’, it has an unclear license situation, is poorly supported in hardware.
> > > VP8 has a formal declaration of unlicensable IPR, https://ietf.org/ipr/2035/  .
> > >
> > >> 15.       All entities MUST support decoding using Theora.
> > >>        a.         Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
> > >
> > > No
> > >
> > >>        b.         Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
> > >
> > > Theora is not ‘current’, it has an unclear license situation, is poorly supported in hardware.
> > >
> > >> 16.       All entities MUST support Motion JPEG
> > >>        a.         Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
> > >
> > > Acceptable
> > >
> > >>        b.         Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > David Singer
> > > Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rtcweb mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> >
> > David Singer
> > Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtcweb mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> 

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.