Re: [rtcweb] Counting NOs (Re: Straw Poll on Nokia mincing)

[Stephan Wenger <[e-mail]>]

On 12/21/13, 10:44 AM, "Monty Montgomery" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> In the context of an IETF WG, "determined by consensus" generally means
>>that
>> the WG made a determination. If the WG didn't make such a determination
>> but some other group did, it would probably be appropriate to qualify
>>the group
>> that made the determination.
>
>Then you honestly misunderstood me, and I apologize for apparently
>calling you out.  The message I wrote was really a continuation of the
>thoughts I'd not put in the previous message.  It was not directed at
>you (though it _was_ directed, apparently badly).
>
>Opus did indeed have several spurious IPR declarations against it,
>marked willing to license FRAND.

For the record, in my opinion, those declarations are not spurious.

>For a codec intended from inception
>to be RF, that would have been a death sentence (and abject failure in
>the minds of most of the individuals who contributed) had the
>declarations been believable.  Simply being 'better' was unlikely to
>be sufficiently compelling.

IMO, somewhat to my surprise, the quality argument did cut to, as I
believe you correctly stated, a growing part of the industry.  You know,
some folks are willing to run the ³risk² of paying RAND terms for good
technology.

>
>Monty