Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue

<Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com> Fri, 25 October 2013 09:06 UTC

Return-Path: <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com>
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 17CE521E80BD for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 02:06:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 kfYLzoIJL3c7 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 02:05:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mgw-da01.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.128.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51E3E21E80C1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 02:05:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.47]) by mgw-da01.nokia.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2) with ESMTP id r9P8xgRX008858 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Fri, 25 Oct 2013 11:59:43 +0300
Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-043.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.3.235]) by 008-AM1MMR1-013.mgdnok.nokia.com ([2002:4136:1e2f::4136:1e2f]) with mapi id 14.03.0136.001; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 08:59:41 +0000
From: Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com
To: silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com, matthew.kaufman@skype.net
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue
Thread-Index: AQHO0CDhRcO5ZGLqUUag+6tiIuKaVJoCjkaAgAEDvACAAEBxAIAAMjWAgABmioCAAKhqMA==
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 08:59:41 +0000
Message-ID: <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7620A0F27E9@008-AM1MPN1-043.mgdnok.nokia.com>
References: <52681A96.2020904@alvestrand.no> <526826AF.5030308@librevideo.org> <52690090.2050609@alvestrand.no> <BBE9739C2C302046BD34B42713A1E2A22DFCD683@ESESSMB105.ericsson.se> <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A4843D45DC08@TK5EX14MBXC266.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <CAHp8n2kTe-A3+Lf-mWhzNUHRMRf+jNN89Mwj=wMRhYYgfdmL-w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHp8n2kTe-A3+Lf-mWhzNUHRMRf+jNN89Mwj=wMRhYYgfdmL-w@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-tituslabs-classifications-30: TLPropertyRoot=Nokia; Confidentiality=Nokia Internal Use Only; Project=None;
x-titus-version: 3.5.9.3
x-headerinfofordlp: None
x-tituslabs-classificationhash-30: VgNFIFU9Hx+/nZJb9Kg7IiWc+o8hXFUdLEV0dd3jRi9ZSnsyh2XxM9weacZlWDiXp2iugdu9/GeoD1NA6FKLHcwaKBRAiccUJ0MNT8h9MBXc/rgYtLrRsB5pMO+FxzwPovcKyyYUD6X9TbWJu8NgcZi7McFgkluASQ00lfICVg6apNxFMnyGEEuExlpdykNE18BSUlOpvQLyhfy/vKX6vQk6IExW9utbu+gZQFMDBmthSHLcbECFAcwYBHig4JX1
x-originating-ip: [172.21.80.105]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7620A0F27E9008AM1MPN1043mg_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue
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: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 09:06:03 -0000

I don't think this is true. A person must disclose all IPR he/she is reasonably and personally aware of related to his/her own contribution or contribution made by others (in certain conditions). But in neither case is the person required to know all potential IPR his/her employer has, nor is the employer required to do a search of their IPR portfolio for that purpose. In this particular case things are even more vague since neither VP8 or H.264 is an IETF-developed technology. IETF is just referencing those technologies in its own documents. For instance regarding H.264 everyone's interpretation is (or seems to be) that IETF declarations are not done especially since the IPR is already declared in ISO/MPEG/ITU. For VP8 Nokia indeed did a declaration, but we did not think we were _required_ to do so. And I have heard from a few other companies that their interpretation is the same.

So I don't think the IETF IPR disclosure & declaration process can be much relied upon in this case, especially related to what IPR do the various _companies_ _overall_ have. Otherwise we could also consider H.264 as unencumbered since there are no IETF IPR declarations about it at the moment...

Markus


From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Silvia Pfeiffer
Sent: 25 October, 2013 01:10
To: Matthew Kaufman
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue


If VP8 is chosen as MTI, you'd need to come out as per IETF requirements. So would others. That's a good thing. If there indeed is anything there.
Silvia.
On 25 Oct 2013 03:11, "Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)" <matthew.kaufman@skype.net<mailto:matthew.kaufman@skype.net>> wrote:
On the IPR issue, Google reached agreement with 11 patent holders. There are at least 31 companies in the MPEG-LA H.264 pool. There is considerable technical overlap between VP8 and H.264.

My employer is one of those in the H.264 pool, and wasn't one of the 11 companies Google reached an agreement with.

Draw your own conclusions and take your own IPR risks.

Personally I'd rather the IPR devil I know vs. the IPR devil I don't know.

Google could fix this for most potential users (through indemnification, similar to what Oracle offers its Linux licensees) but has chosen not to. You can draw your own conclusion there, too.

Matthew Kaufman

From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org> [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Bo Burman
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 6:27 AM
To: Harald Alvestrand; rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue

1) We do agree that H.264 Constrained Baseline and VP8 are comparable in terms of video quality. But do not forget that Constrained Baseline's twin sister H.264 Constrained High outperforms VP8 by a huge margin. This is also relevant.

2) The "back-and forth of numbers" seems to refer to Ericsson's work where we tried to make a fair comparison to evaluate the extraordinary claims from Google that VP8 is 70 or 40 percent better than x264. We found serious issues with the way Google performed the test, maybe the most striking were the use of padding (+8% for x264) and excessive number of threads (+10% to +40% for x264) to add overhead to x264. That Google managed to remember the threading parameter only when it helped
VP8 (the speed test) is also quite remarkable.

3) Regarding IPR, this is a difficult topic, but we're not at all convinced that VP8 is royalty free. For example, there is an IETF IPR disclosure (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2035/) where the IPR holder seems unwilling to license (on any terms), and http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/06/german-vp8-infringement-cases-show.html and http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/06/itc-institutes-investigation-of-nokias.html show that there are in fact ongoing litigations regarding VP8 - and this is only skimming the surface of what is available in public space.

/Bo

From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org> [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Harald Alvestrand
Sent: den 24 oktober 2013 13:12
To: rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue

On 10/23/2013 09:42 PM, Basil Mohamed Gohar wrote:

On 10/23/2013 02:51 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:

Just a reminder:

The back-and-forth of numbers doesn't change the core question of this

debate.

Both codecs are capable of high quality video encoding, and performance

numbers are comparable.



The real core question is the IPR issue.



The tradition of the IETF says that allowing only business models that

can sustain royalty agreements and royalty payments is Bad for the Internet.



The dominant video codec, H.264, is a royalty-required codec.



Do we switch now, or do we give up and live with royalties forever?





Harald,



I would like to see some references to the tradition of the IETF that

you've quoted.



For the record, I agree with the sentiment, but I'd like to be able to

back up the claim itself with references or explicit decisions that were

made in that regard.  I'm not trying to be a thorn in your side, just

looking for citations to back up the arguments, both on and off list.


Basil, very happy to provide references!

RFC 3979, a core document about IPR in the IETF, 2005:

8.  Evaluating Alternative Technologies in IETF Working Groups



   In general, IETF working groups prefer technologies with no known IPR

   claims or, for technologies with claims against them, an offer of

   royalty-free licensing.  But IETF working groups have the discretion

   to adopt technology with a commitment of fair and non-discriminatory

   terms, or even with no licensing commitment, if they feel that this

   technology is superior enough to alternatives with fewer IPR claims

   or free licensing to outweigh the potential cost of the licenses.

The complete section gives some more details, but this is the central quote.

You may also enjoy reading the section of RFC 6569 (the guidelines that were followed in the OPUS work) that deals with IPR:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6569#page-8




--

Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.

_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb