Re: [rtcweb] Discussion on codec choices from a developer who doesn't come to IETF

Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org> Fri, 04 May 2012 19:09 UTC

Return-Path: <stewe@stewe.org>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FBAD21F855D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 May 2012 12:09:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.784
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.784 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.186, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p2Rn4uXOdpik for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 May 2012 12:09:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from va3outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (va3ehsobe010.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.180.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4719721F84DF for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 May 2012 12:09:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail94-va3-R.bigfish.com (10.7.14.244) by VA3EHSOBE002.bigfish.com (10.7.40.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Fri, 4 May 2012 19:08:58 +0000
Received: from mail94-va3 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail94-va3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD103240121; Fri, 4 May 2012 19:08:57 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.240.133; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:BL2PRD0710HT001.namprd07.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: 6
X-BigFish: PS6(zzc85ehzz1202h1082kzz8275bhz2fh2a8h668h839he5bhbe3k)
Received-SPF: pass (mail94-va3: domain of stewe.org designates 157.56.240.133 as permitted sender) client-ip=157.56.240.133; envelope-from=stewe@stewe.org; helo=BL2PRD0710HT001.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ; .outlook.com ;
Received: from mail94-va3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail94-va3 (MessageSwitch) id 1336158534392402_5406; Fri, 4 May 2012 19:08:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from VA3EHSMHS015.bigfish.com (unknown [10.7.14.235]) by mail94-va3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D0A420154; Fri, 4 May 2012 19:08:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from BL2PRD0710HT001.namprd07.prod.outlook.com (157.56.240.133) by VA3EHSMHS015.bigfish.com (10.7.99.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Fri, 4 May 2012 19:08:50 +0000
Received: from BL2PRD0710MB349.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.1.182]) by BL2PRD0710HT001.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.102.36]) with mapi id 14.16.0152.000; Fri, 4 May 2012 19:09:00 +0000
From: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>
To: Dean Willis <dean.willis@softarmor.com>, Lorenzo Miniero <lorenzo@meetecho.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Discussion on codec choices from a developer who doesn't come to IETF
Thread-Index: AQHNKdJbp9KGAkNNHkG4ROjNnYqhkZa5q6GAgAB0+4A=
Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 19:09:00 +0000
Message-ID: <CBC9F453.86B26%stewe@stewe.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAOHm=4scg-+QnU2g_Tbmc1c615rrRO=oiUCAQ3nL4JORU+3Zmg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.255.102.4]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CBC9F45386B26stewesteweorg_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: stewe.org
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Discussion on codec choices from a developer who doesn't come to IETF
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Fri, 04 May 2012 19:09:10 -0000

From: Dean Willis <dean.willis@softarmor.com<mailto:dean.willis@softarmor.com>>
Date: Friday, 4 May, 2012 16:10
[…]
[…]

I am more worried about the guy implementing a WebRTC security camera that uses an embedded Linux kernel and a software video encoder. Each unit might "produce" video 24x7. But there is no MPEG-LA licensed browser or OS or encoder chip to fall back on. The whole product might sell for less than it might cost him to license the codec.

Really?  The MPEG-LA license terms for one encoder/decoder: $0 for the first 100,000 units per year.  $0.20 for the next several millions, after that $0.10 until the cap is reached.  And, the MPEG-LA license is "take it or leave it" (at least for small fish like your hypothetical camera guy), so even the lawyer cost for review should be minimal.

No, I continue to believe that the MPEG-LA license is not a hurdle for anyone but those giving stuff away for free, or having a business model that disallows them to pay licensing fees.  It's the patents not covered by that license that you may worry about.

Stephan