Re: [rtcweb] Straw Poll on Nokia mincing

[Mohammed Raad <[e-mail]>]

Well, many of those same people saying that they only want to maintain one
codec have been more than willing to keep on developing new standardized
codecs and to pile on profiles, which, in many practical situations means
different code bases.

A compromise, by definition, is taking what one can get, which simply has
to be acceptable and may not match what one was aiming for.

What members of this WG have been saying, and writing, is that they want
interoperability. OK, so that can be achieved with at least one of the
options in the straw poll that VP8 proponents have indicated is acceptable.
It would seem logical and reasonable to expect AVC proponents to take up
that option also. I started commenting when I noticed that was not
happening, which raised the question in my mind as to whether or not there
is an intention to achieve interoperability, or whether there were still
genuine misunderstandings wrt the IPR situation.

Best Regards,
Mohammed



On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
<[e-mail]>wrote:

> I think the biggest problem is that people only want to maintain code
> for one codec. If you already have H.264 support implemented, you will
> oppose every other codec, no matter how big the advantages.
> Therefore, a compromise is not possible with such a position.
>
> Silvia.
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Mohammed Raad
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Correct on changing the subject line, this really started as a
> clarification
> > question and then grew, sorry.
> >
> > What is relevant to the straw poll thread is that we should have a
> correct
> > summary of where the IPR situation really is.
> >
> > It has been pointed out that the MTI should satisfy options a) or b) on
> the
> > ietf declaration form. As matters stand AVC/h264 does not satisfy that,
> this
> > has been made very clear through the ISO process. On the other hand, VP8
> has
> > so far withstood court challenges, as you point out - something which AVC
> > could not BTW - and the technology owning entities willing to license VP8
> > relevant technology under the required royalty free terms has grown
> > significantly during the past year.
> >
> > It would seem very clear that the codec that is closer to the royalty
> free
> > ideal situation is VP8.
> >
> > As such, it is surprising to see AVC proponents opposing the adoption of
> > VP8, even as one of two MTI codecs - something that VP8 proponents
> appear to
> > be saying is acceptable - based on IPR arguments.
> >
> > If members of this WG wish to move towards a compromise that allows
> webrtc
> > to fulfill the potential that it has then this is their opportunity. I
> > certainly encourage them to take this opportunity.
> >
> > Mohammed
> >
> >
> > Please people, changing the subject for side discussions like the Chairs
> > requested isn't rocket science ...
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:47:14PM +0000, Stephan Wenger wrote:
> >> My gosh.  Nokia has people at the IETF, and they made statements
> >> and have not minced words.
> >
> > They also have people making statements in the courts, where they
> > seem to be getting, well, thoroughly minced!
> >
> >
> > The interesting question isn't Nokia's intention here, I don't think
> > anyone seriously doubts what it is.  The interesting questions are
> > twofold:
> >
> >  a) Do they even have the slimmest leg to stand on with their claims
> >     against VP8?  There's so far no supporting evidence to say that
> >     they do, and plenty stacking up against them.
> >
> >  b) Given their stubborn refusal to make any declaration about their
> >     intentions or IPR for H.264 here, does anybody have even the
> >     slightest idea what their terms are for licencing the Cisco blob?
> >
> >
> > Meritorious or meretricious, the devil is in such little details.
> >
> >   Ron
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtcweb mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtcweb mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> >
>



-- 
Mohammed Raad, PhD.
Partner
RAADTECH CONSULTING
P.O. Box 113
Warrawong
NSW 2502 Australia
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]