Re: [rtcweb] Plan for MTI video codec?

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Fri, 14 November 2014 02:21 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.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 DD7E01A1B46 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 18:21:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 IhF7G_rcxvPl for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 18:21:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-f182.google.com (mail-wi0-f182.google.com [209.85.212.182]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DC7C1A1B27 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 18:21:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f182.google.com with SMTP id h11so1291394wiw.15 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 18:21:19 -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; bh=x/iSFHx01J53Tof32zRFXEExZtRehDAEKU6O/3Mvw4w=; b=Q7oeE/4gSPFmScVGtUJezGtHrk6xAQFJqiiAzVeF+4OX1V0yqxTXdaDQxO2Xn7f9z5 4BK+64Dp5NB/YPudfuevdlOuzaxBxo/WVxZuzRrkpuTvKYgjL3gYy9ppCxgU4SixJEOi S1BM8EuYJXHK6opR5Tc/DtU+RxFccJU+l+in3lVuu3P4qzkgTG+4Ml+iviA7svBIMm+1 oVuuvILLQOYSxc0AId9hmKYoOy8IHb79iHne1rkkSR6Xd3G8dDGVtPG8xM5z9aRcOeXp QZRw4LKUcPl1j7JK9ata2muijdNZMqSchIsim316RMS1lTFqTbN44afGQ51b28VZ+DcD gl/A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkyhiuTzXRO0sOaWIPNueAgp+sZDSUMVZqT+MIj9s72rfLZ99A+gJxLkxjgBkDoUdHMFYrO
X-Received: by 10.194.176.198 with SMTP id ck6mr9023053wjc.25.1415931679074; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 18:21:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-f52.google.com (mail-wg0-f52.google.com. [74.125.82.52]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id r10sm1531227wiy.13.2014.11.13.18.21.17 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 13 Nov 2014 18:21:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f52.google.com with SMTP id b13so18143723wgh.25 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 18:21:17 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.92.116 with SMTP id cl20mr9422130wjb.71.1415931677502; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 18:21:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.216.176.65 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 18:21:17 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <5a86546928b841e9b063354de2aa279d@NOKWDCFIEXCH02P.nnok.nokia.com>
References: <CAGTXFp-HVJDwd86207PNM2QVYO4Z_K4WF-KarnRs1fb7nvy4zA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMDfES8gpi0-PTXpCnQHjFYUSF2r44TNzH5B4UfDGo8PtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAGTXFp8O-7ACksk3v3f=KjCkcDb4e8G=t-e=EJ1503vt7TkpCQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAGTXFp867AMUZ_fEKxG9uAoR1H1AirVHi3-ayJ=KTQk9L+C7+g@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMAZufR7gUrwkS7Tf5GOfg+ZtsZWGcn-8YLCvnmYnTgfFw@mail.gmail.com> <544035DE.8000606@matthew.at> <CABkgnnUNgWaauS6-nZ5fcExjsMPy4ZGPXaahduzA39=iqh9+fQ@mail.gmail.com> <D5D11F2B-9E32-4932-A601-F1D7FD50C706@gmail.com> <544117FB.6050706@alvestrand.no> <CAHgZEq6GTk5ei+LLpWPM5povpieompD66VU9F+u7--WJVgapaQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+23+fGWnWd0QEeCmZ=6BmJkPrUVW6cZ0jwmXA+fM88=_+_NWw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOW+2dugTtfLhk0VuJOk7OPEonGBApMjY93EZocH90RbX6X22w@mail.gmail.com> <CAHgZEq5t4-Cot9XkU_pfyfi0TBCUxfT79ZvpiLW=X5_KUQh5dA@mail.gmail.com> <CACsn0ck_VtMnf6740rh0ku1Qct7s-xrJEfokg6oufEi4wgrYAw@mail.gmail.com> <D069AC57.49A8E%stewe@stewe.org> <D06D5403.49D1D%stewe@stewe.org> <544AE196.6080907@nostrum.com> <5a86546928b841e9b063354de2aa279d@NOKWDCFIEXCH02P.nnok.nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:21:17 -0500
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxuHvjYJZOjECqKbHGJfGvf6HVLyGu1Cev6iCiNht7JWFg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: markus.isomaki@nokia.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bd910c2a9f4e80507c848c4
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/e1yOIxDbljT1A2yjImBVvukY5Ms
Cc: watsonbladd@gmail.com, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Plan for MTI video codec?
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: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 02:21:24 -0000

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, <markus.isomaki@nokia.com> 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
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>