[rtcweb] H.263 licensing situation
Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org> Mon, 18 November 2013 16:36 UTC
Return-Path: <stewe@stewe.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 0064211E8100 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:36:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-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 VHbOX+UyxntI for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:36:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2lp0243.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.243]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96DFD11E80E9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:36:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from CO1PR07MB363.namprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.141.75.22) by CO1PR07MB361.namprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.141.75.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.820.5; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 16:35:49 +0000
Received: from CO1PR07MB363.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.3.35]) by CO1PR07MB363.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.3.99]) with mapi id 15.00.0820.005; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 16:35:49 +0000
From: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: H.263 licensing situation
Thread-Index: AQHO5Hw82CrX2zLKtkCl7+jrUHCjXg==
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 16:35:47 +0000
Message-ID: <CEAF79BA.AA6AD%stewe@stewe.org>
In-Reply-To: <5289CE55.6090004@googlemail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [24.5.171.95]
x-forefront-prvs: 00342DD5BC
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(189002)(199002)(46102001)(50986001)(47976001)(81686001)(56776001)(80976001)(47736001)(49866001)(56816003)(54316002)(51856001)(74876001)(83322001)(4396001)(83072001)(81542001)(79102001)(77982001)(81342001)(77096001)(69226001)(47446002)(81816001)(36756003)(76796001)(76176001)(76786001)(74366001)(87936001)(74502001)(80022001)(65816001)(31966008)(2656002)(87266001)(74662001)(85306002)(53806001)(76482001)(63696002)(59766001)(54356001)(66066001)(74706001)(42262001); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:CO1PR07MB361; H:CO1PR07MB363.namprd07.prod.outlook.com; CLIP:24.5.171.95; FPR:; RD:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:0; LANG:en;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <993004F30483EE49B48A471DACE17FC0@namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: stewe.org
Subject: [rtcweb] H.263 licensing situation
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: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 16:36:40 -0000
Hi, Here is what I know or suspect regarding H.263 licensing: Know: Leon is correct, there are type 2 patent declarations in the ITU against H.263. Maik is also correct, H.263 baseline is a subset of MPEG-4 part 2. MPEG-4 part 2 is generally considered royalty bearing and the license has been enforced. However, very few (no one?) is using strict H.263 baseline, and even for an only slightly more advanced use of H.263 (no need to go to H.263+, for example), the MPEG-4 portfolio license would not apply. H.263 has been the predominant codec in the video conferencing industry for close to a decade (ca. 1996 through ca. 2005). In all this time, I have heard of one single instance of patent assertion by a non-troll against several of the large video conferencing vendors. However, since those vendors all used a chip produced by the non-troll, they had enough commercial leverage to fend off those assertions without the dispute ever going to trial and, so I hear, without paying any premium for the use of the patent. The patent in question has now expired. H.263 baseline is insufficient for rtcweb¹s purposes, as it does not allow arbitrary picture sizes. You want to have at least the PLUSPTYPE picture header extension which allows arbitrary picture sizes. You also probably want a few of the optional modes, especially the bug-fixes (improved VLC) and the deblocking filter. Patents related to this technologies are not covered under the MPEG-LA MPEG-4 part 2 license. Suspect: Since we would most likely not use strict H.263 baseline, the war-chest of the MPEG-LA pool cannot be used to enforce a patent against our hypothetical H.263 implementation because it is not MPEG-4 part 2 compliant. Which, in turn, means that the MPEG-4 part 2 rightholders would be on their own in asserting their patents. Which, in turn, means that there is no difference between H.263 and other non-pooled video codecs from an MPEG-LA related risk assessment. There have been patent assertions by trolls allegedly related to video compression in general and H.263 in particular, but those happen all the time and there is not much one can do about them. Once you are a juicy enough target (based on the troll¹s perception of relationship between your legal competence versus your size) the troll will find you. Technicalities such as whether the patent is actually infringed or related to standards are secondary at best in the eye of a troll. Their business, at least when going against smaller companies, is to settle for a few hundreds of thousands--an amount the alleged infringer can pay without excessive hurt--thereby filling their war chest and then go to the next ³customer². When they meet determined opposition (based on a combination of legal and technical competence), they often move on to greener pastures. As H.263 is fairly widely deployed, and I have not heard about patent assertions except the cases mentioned above, the risk of a successful patent assertion is probably manageable for almost everyone with sufficient legal resources. At least in countries that allow equitable defenses (implied license, laches, estoppel). So is it worth evaluating H.263 further? IMO, probably not. It¹s doubtless technically better than H.261, but the risk is inproportionally higher. And the whole idea of this substandard baseline codec has been to be essentially without risk. Stephan >
- [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Stephan Wenger
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Jonathan Rosenberg
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward cb.list6
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Robin Raymond
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Gustavo Garcia
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Jeremy Fuller
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Jonathan Rosenberg
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Gili
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Thomas Reisinger
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Thomas Reisinger
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Ross Finlayson
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Thomas Reisinger
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Magnus Westerlund
- [rtcweb] H.263 licensing situation Stephan Wenger
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Maik Merten
- [rtcweb] Reference implementation of software cod… cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Reference implementation of software… cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Reference implementation of software… Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Gili
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Gili
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Steve Kann
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Monty Montgomery
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Matt Fredrickson
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Enrico Marocco
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Matthew Kaufman
- [rtcweb] cisco binary on ec2 Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] cisco binary on ec2 Matt Fredrickson
- Re: [rtcweb] cisco binary on ec2 Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward cb.list6
- [rtcweb] H.264 CBP (was: Video codec selection - … cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] H.264 CBP (was: Video codec selectio… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] H.264 CBP (was: Video codec selectio… Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] cisco binary on ec2 Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] cisco binary on ec2 cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] cisco binary on ec2 Roman Shpount