Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

Maik Merten <> Fri, 22 November 2013 21:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97ED31AE265 for <>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 13:19:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o9FEqrpnGrEx for <>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 13:19:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c00::233]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EECA11AE23A for <>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 13:19:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id b15so769349eek.10 for <>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 13:19:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=oSqc4GyqJaiGzGRiAj6VSM0K9ey6NAvayl5o7uwcV0Y=; b=WDT8UkfV0oqxg/jlVVRunL5WoPrYn++uBaaF5nCPa4Ro9J8kWl2A0SwVAH0qWyMYUM 183kJL1YGOPH4X/I/xNWcVY3S0WssFDHJOC/ReXbQH1teXapOptjAc0QoNjy9vbLcbnG MJK7htD1C4Awrd+6N+ntzfhzrIshyQJ3oynR4p+hX3AVs+rh0Z9uQIfDer+KMLzroVPu IRuvEtEyO1eTKgVlDfGOckLGgfuGekzElonCMYzbanosIHpiymUwQ9pHosuCKaMGdTm9 aVgPV1jJrNA97VtSX/ScakWFFEeUZnNHoyBe01z6dbUE5fldWySCHVyZao/ZoQcdad3k RLJA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id x48mr19336629eeo.0.1385155180413; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 13:19:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id 1sm80274403eeg.4.2013. for <> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 22 Nov 2013 13:19:39 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 22:19:36 +0100
From: Maik Merten <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 21:19:49 -0000

Am 22.11.2013 21:01, schrieb David Singer:
> I am not knocking his opinion, you understand, just questioning whether we should discard H.263 based on just this one opinion.

The overall notion of H.261 being implementable without restrictions is 
easy to grasp: The technology is over 25 years old, which puts it into 
the "comfy zone" of patent expiration. It is hard to come up with a 
scenario where patents covering the original standard and original 
reference implementation would still be enforceable.

H.263 would be vastly preferable in terms of technology level and 
deployment, but it isn't yet old enough to *automatically* be in the 
same "comfy zone". It is quite old, but not *that* old.

This doesn't mean there actually *are* unavoidable H.263 patents. 
However, the IPR and licensing situation surrounding H.263 would need to 
be analyzed thoroughly by professionals and the findings would need to 
be shared.

Does anybody here have the resources to conduct such an analysis? If a 
credible analysis reveals that H.263 (or MPEG-1 Part 2, that one is also 
clearly superior to H.261) is actually carrying low risk this would be 
quite something.