IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue

Jack Moffitt <jack@metajack.im> Wed, 30 October 2013 17:08 UTC

Return-Path: <metajack@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8A5911E82A3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:08:39 -0700 (PDT)
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=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g5DWymLbmLVu for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:08:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vc0-x229.google.com (mail-vc0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82E6211E82D4 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:07:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vc0-f169.google.com with SMTP id hu8so1126613vcb.14 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:07:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=vrKbx8p8R/ZL9OeX5yuwzprVoGW6EAp8DQR5gmk3PNw=; b=df6wVC76zasMOUQevP3p9YxeR/U2kuwI/5WHZ5DLRgARM73ukt5ihQPamSoD2P4SCC +xccr7H+OprsnDB5P90IqiEUnJYRi9ZUdbhJ54fi3YWUyt6vUcwUKyFd5M++PJeuCo/5 BgNHtxn0VUMt/FKVb9zWbelxANgZb+h2xMbKpTauveYUd4jBCNRktW7STd4IDL/RgH4s ib82lFTGBZVz/tEog+BarQIAxJQI6UKCWDhsnuyGRLWu5gulWeY67oavOYqlIgRGjqqU 4zf5K7KFuy7i0UAq/Xl43yc9g28mrat3/VPYPnH6fMi+tjDcGpWCzTZIxGTiLa7HZTKn OlXQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.165.131 with SMTP id yy3mr3105573vdb.25.1383152865241; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:07:45 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: metajack@gmail.com
Received: by 10.220.145.15 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:07:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <52713962.3010201@matthew.at>
References: <52681A96.2020904@alvestrand.no> <52713962.3010201@matthew.at>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 11:07:45 -0600
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 6esdZn1gWDvpInJzkCra9hDJ8Wo
Message-ID: <CAP7VpsXDtkW3uEQ2whC7m9=NLAZhowDoiFKBU4g7pCOEJ+zNcg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jack Moffitt <jack@metajack.im>
To: Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 17:08:40 -0000

>> Do we switch now, or do we give up and live with royalties forever?
>
> This is a little dramatic. One can trivially prove that every technology
> required to implement H.264 will lose the protection of the patent system in
> a finite period of time. Much, much sooner than "forever".

Selection of royalty-required codecs sets a precedent.

jack.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email