Re: [rtcweb] ~"I'd love it if patents evaporated...If not now, when"

Ron <ron@debian.org> Wed, 13 November 2013 20:29 UTC

Return-Path: <ron@debian.org>
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 19CD111E8120 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:29:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.423
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.423 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1]
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 22U8624FLZBW for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:28:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net [IPv6:2001:44b8:8060:ff02:300:1:6:6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64E5D11E8107 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:28:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppp14-2-50-7.lns21.adl2.internode.on.net (HELO audi.shelbyville.oz) ([14.2.50.7]) by ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 14 Nov 2013 06:58:58 +1030
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by audi.shelbyville.oz (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC2944F8F3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 06:58:53 +1030 (CST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at audi.shelbyville.oz
Received: from audi.shelbyville.oz ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (audi.shelbyville.oz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id zVj8h0WOAZDr for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 06:58:52 +1030 (CST)
Received: by audi.shelbyville.oz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BDC7F4F902; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 06:58:52 +1030 (CST)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 06:58:52 +1030
From: Ron <ron@debian.org>
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20131113202852.GP3245@audi.shelbyville.oz>
References: <5282A340.7010405@gondwanaland.com> <20131113165526.GA13468@verdi>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20131113165526.GA13468@verdi>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] ~"I'd love it if patents evaporated...If not now, when"
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, 13 Nov 2013 20:29:04 -0000

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:55:26AM -0500, John Leslie wrote:
> 
>    Thus, Cisco management would _very_much_ prefer that VP8 _not_ be
> MTI. They probably won't implement it.

I don't understand your logic here?  They've said they are all for future
codecs like Daala that will surely have the same FUD spread about them by
the same few belligerent actors.  How is that any different to the current
status of VP8?

Also: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/video/ps9901/ps10631/data_sheet_c78-565206_ps12130_Products_Data_Sheet.html

... says it supports WebM.

So "probably won't" looks more like "already have" here.


>    Conversely, of course, "linux" management would _very_much_ prefer
> that H.264 not be MTI. They probably won't implement it.

There is a critical difference between "would prefer" and "cannot licence".

The symmetry you seem to suggest here isn't grounded in reality.
"Don't want to" is not even approximately the same as "have no licence to".


  Ron