Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announcement - but we still prefer VP8

[cowwoc <[e-mail]>]

     I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing this out.

Gili

On 07/11/2013 4:16 PM, Krasimir Kolarov wrote:
> The date of the declaration can be seen clearly in the database - 
> August 5, 2013
>
>
> On Nov 7, 2013, at 1:13 PM, cowwoc <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>>
>>     Are you implying that Google made this move *after* purchasing 
>> Motorola? If not, your statement sounds factually incorrect.
>>
>> Gili
>>
>> On 07/11/2013 4:10 PM, Krasimir Kolarov wrote:
>>> One interesting observation from the database is that one of the 
>>> most recent Type 2 (royalty bearing) declarations on the list is 
>>> from a major proponent of Royalty Free coding - Motorola Mobility 
>>> (which is now fully owned by Google).
>>>
>>> It looks like a compelling strategy - to offer technology that you 
>>> support for Royalty Free adoption, while blocking a competing 
>>> technology with a Type 2 declaration.
>>>
>>> Krasimir
>>>
>>> On Nov 7, 2013, at 12:59 PM, Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail] 
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The list of declarations made against the proposed baseline 
>>>> document is available at the bottom of this page:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards_development/governance_of_technical_work/patents.htm
>>>>
>>>> For declarations against the MPEG baseline proposal, look for the 
>>>> number 14496-29.
>>>>
>>>> For some of the declarations, the spreadsheet will tell you whether 
>>>> it's a Type 1 (royalty free) or Type 2 (royalty bearing) 
>>>> declaration. For the 3 most recent declarations in the spreadsheet, 
>>>> you will even find a link to the declaration itself.
>>>>
>>>> Draw your own conclusions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Monty Montgomery 
>>>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     > In short, most MPEG members are not evil, and want the same
>>>>     thing as the
>>>>     > open source and broader communities, including royalty-free
>>>>     licensing.
>>>>
>>>>     I agree, but the structure of the MPEG is such that it only
>>>>     takes one
>>>>     (or a handful).  We've heard promises of RF baselines
>>>>     stretching back
>>>>     almost 20 years.
>>>>
>>>>     I agree this would be a wholly positive development, but frankly...
>>>>     call us when it's done.
>>>>
>>>>     Monty
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>