Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

Matt Fredrickson <creslin@digium.com> Thu, 21 November 2013 22:57 UTC

Return-Path: <creslin@digium.com>
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 AFC021AE3E0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:57:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.979
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.979 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 4Gox6IqjYzX0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:57:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-f171.google.com (mail-lb0-f171.google.com [209.85.217.171]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 810831AE17A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:57:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f171.google.com with SMTP id q8so339704lbi.2 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:57:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=psgCe8aVuzmY1HKU6bZ3zlxkHXGNaMyumNDfKQeGQOM=; b=InGHuJzdcvQGu0wpM5zExI9DGvS35LxRDZ7rddmdKlJJ5yXEItJfhITcDjh0b/x+j4 0W8IiB06SXHD2q5dINgxgBV+WxfvJ5BexokURMNqnAHTrsP49X/1oaXwANJxZTTeAXJs YrjQmPcWd12MEGFO6jFRrYPn95YYIgfFFQScYe+ISrL3MJGc6ukdEzo0shrwc7TQCUs/ pCRZ4FKX/j6WzpNhfL8ugAZi2B9LdTM2Xx4fYHitKiuF/4r1CzvM3djGlPCY1t17Ps59 yov6nORxmg02il60SWqrnMmV8VkDftaLxMAuPyh2WC2jag62K9Hj6PGPeMQqH+mAgm8S TpQg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmrTUDyE12CZyTB+fuLy8DbL9f3mERYyVr0J1M+bl6kJf9bwI+qUvdwpaE2eIo//AEp83jJ
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.53.134 with SMTP id b6mr6490724lbp.5.1385074623780; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:57:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.132.102 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:57:03 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA8AD7E8@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com>
References: <CAOJ7v-3ruj91wd=1_TUevapamLxNJ93Ukd=VU+Gq7Q19YTvc+A@mail.gmail.com> <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA8AD7E8@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 16:57:03 -0600
Message-ID: <CAHZ_z=we6MXUbbWrdxwXQzENBQZv-0Fx4WR6rNM+=_=XN8J-+Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matt Fredrickson <creslin@digium.com>
To: Stefan Slivinski <sslivinski@lifesize.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
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: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 22:57:13 -0000

Isn't the point to pick a codec old enough that the codec standard
itself should be considered prior art on any claims made against it?

Matthew Fredrickson

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Stefan Slivinski
<sslivinski@lifesize.com>; wrote:
> Having some experience with patent trolls I have come to the realization
> that if you have means they will sue you for pretty much anything even if
> you do not actually infringe on their patents. You are then in the position
> of fighting them or paying them off.
>
> I think it is naïve to believe you can ever completely avoid IPR by picking
> some archaic codec. I think we need to come up with a different solution to
> defend against infringement claims rather than trying to avoid them
>
>
> From: Justin Uberti [mailto:juberti@google.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 04:31 PM
> To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>;
> Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org <rtcweb@ietf.org>;
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
>
> Even the proposal that recommended H.264 as MTI indicated that the technical
> merit of the currently proposed codecs is equivalent, and the fundamental
> question is IPR.
> http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/88/slides/slides-88-rtcweb-8.pdf
>
> Put another way, if the alleged IPR issues associated with either H.264 or
> VP8 disappeared overnight, this discussion would be instantly over.
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>; wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Nov 21, 2013, at 12:36 PM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>; wrote:
>>
>> > That said, I think the general understanding here is that this is no
>> > longer a technical decision.
>> >
>>
>> I'll note that some people strongly disagree with this is not a technical
>> decision but there are others who do think it is is no longer a technical
>> decision.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>