Re: [rtcweb] Plan for MTI video codec?

[Roman Shpount <[e-mail]>]

Markus,

Not to be harsh, but all of this to me this sounds like Nokia is trying to
sabotage any chance for MTI in any foreseeable future since it was not
consulted when VP8 was developed and is not part of VP9 development
process. Since Nokia is not offering anything constructive, such as any
concrete steps on how to resolve this situation, these motives seems to me
childish at best. At worst this is typical patent trolling.

_____________
Roman Shpount

On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 7:51 PM, <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Adam, all,
>
> Since we are going to discuss video codecs today, I thought to clarify
> something that was said earlier.
>
> Adam Roach wrote 25. lokakuuta 2014 2:33
> >
> > On 10/22/14 14:45, Stephan Wenger wrote:
> > > ...
> > > Nokia has made MPEG and ISO/IEC officially aware that they are not
> > > willing to license essential patents under RAND terms.
> >>...
> >
> > Thanks for the update.
> >
> > That's actually even more interesting than it first appears to be. The
> official
> > rationale previously offered by Nokia was that the refusal to license
> patents
> > [0] for VP8 was that VP8 had not been through an appropriate standards
> > process [1]. The fact that Nokia is now using those same patents to
> *block*
> > VP8-based work from going through an appropriate standards process pretty
> > clearly exposes that claim as false. This isn't aimed at ensuring "open
> and
> > collaborative efforts for
> > standardization": this is aimed at suppressing technology.
> >
>
> The key here is "open and collaborative efforts for standardization",
> though. Nokia does not think the *way* VP8 has been dealt with in MPEG
> meets that criteria. Collaborative effort means that all interested parties
> actually have a fair chance to contribute. With VP8 in MPEG this has not
> been the case, but it has been just a matter of pushing a ready-made
> technology through with no changes in practice possible. For those who are
> just a user of video codecs like WebRTC is, it may not matter how the
> codecs are developed or where they come from as long as they work, but for
> those who actually do codec development it does. There has been some
> criticism over how Opus was developed too, but it was certainly a much more
> open and collaborative model than what has happened with VP8 in MPEG.
>
> So the original reasons for Nokia's "unwilling to license under RF or
> RAND" declarations are still valid. I'm sure people have a lot of different
> views on this and the MPEG process, but I just wanted to convey Nokia's
> viewpoint. And I know there are also lot of companies/people who agree with
> it.
>
> Personally I'm sad to see these types of issues getting in the way of
> interoperability, but that has unfortunately been the story with the video
> codecs for a while. It seems the next generation video codecs are facing
> the exact same issue, hopefully the next-next generation will be better
> off...
>
> Regards,
>         Markus
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>