Re: [rtcweb] Plan for MTI video codec?

Markus,

Nokia made no technical contributions to VCB (the MPEG name for the VP8
compatible standard under development). Nokia had plenty of opportunities
to do so. Google had even suggested to MPEG a technical criteria for
accepting new technology into VCB. Nokia could have taken the initiative
and made a technical contribution to at least test that offer. Instead
Nokia sent us a patent declaration that said Nokia would not license it's
patents reading on VCB without telling MPEG which patents the Nokia people
think read on VCB. How you consider this a defence of open standards
development is beyond me.

The funny thing is that it was Nokia people pushing for more challenging
visual tests at MPEG for VCB. Well, we know how that turned out.

Mohammed
On 14 Nov 2014 05:12, <markus.isomaki@nokia.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Ron wrote:
> >
> > >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.
> >
> > Was that "criticism" made in public somewhere, ...
> >
> >...
> >
> > If my memory is simply failing me, I'd welcome some pointers to things
> which
> > back up your claims here to refresh it.
> >
>
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/slides/slides-85-videocodec-7.pdf
>
> (But I don't think we should continue this discussion at RTCWEB list. The
> point was not to bash the Opus process, on the contrary.)
>
> Markus
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>