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

cowwoc <> Wed, 13 November 2013 20:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69FBF11E8136 for <>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:47:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.18
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.18 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.581, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wKv2l4MaMrlz for <>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:47:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EDCB21F9FF3 for <>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:46:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id ar20so1333279iec.19 for <>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:46:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=aDtMyyVtio/iQp6tsVcsiXi4WFke5G+TGEpheTE0GUg=; b=TI2aOSda2kvkycTApFKe4y3iwDpLEvTwjZ56UXp0O4W75hSrwN2dEphPgTR8/74iGX eFHXawxsdBZyapFkK3J5r4ZBiRIsnkNuHYFeh0Q+/BhiTqUTuL83OSxmLI8+gTYOnrBH xgTpcKERHhIf4lF6TT2BCMBHuCnJG3q5xGyhs3Xuv2DK2OYQ/7cjp40E0mhl9eUU+67u vQs1td9Yu8Opu0CuNEP+Ega39tJRMjBg3AuGWrffBOFAN8PRGlRjM0pnoVBGslzUK1Bk mDKFN4A7TYaTnlaBEeI0ZjNFg9Si3qPWcgTMTUwVrSFd+QaxonLLh9qJ/gjyuAl5SrJN K7tA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlWXKeqFfjRBWsGosxK1YUUZ10wZ6zwgftIjiKfMU6FyM8HJU09NyXVz8ylLxELB9rMqTRI
X-Received: by with SMTP id v5mr19775774igh.27.1384375618831; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:46:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id f5sm32078854igc.4.2013. for <> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:46:58 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:46:40 -0500
From: cowwoc <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <20131113165526.GA13468@verdi> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] ~"I'd love it if patents evaporated...If not now, when"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:47:11 -0000

On 13/11/2013 3:02 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> On 11/13/2013 05:55 PM, John Leslie wrote:
>>     Both H.264 and VP8 deserve "SHOULD implement" status. Neither,
>> IMHO, will achieve consensus for "MUST implement" status. Yes, this
>> is a sorry state to find ourselves in. But the marketplace has
>> sorted out much worse problems in my memory.
>>     And I claim that both camps are actually more likely to implement
>> (or allow extensions for) the other side's codec if it is _not_ MTI,
>> simply because they can back out at the first sign of lawyers.
>>     I will not go into any details about how VP8 endpoints might talk
>> to H.264 endpoints, but I'm _very_ confident ways will be found if
>> we actually _publish_ an RFC saying both are "SHOULD implement".
> I don't know if many noticed it, but one reason for my fiddling with
> devices to show Hangouts working on stage at the meeting was to show
> that transcoding is in fact working in real services that people are
> using on a day-to-day basis.
> Sure, it's not optimal. In fact, it hurts. But it's not the end of the
> world either.

So... we're throwing P2P out of WebRTC?

If you mandate H.261 as MTI, big business can still do transcoding and 
the rest of us can use H.261. Small business shouldn't have to choose 
between transcoding and dropping the call.