IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Monty Montgomery <xiphmont@gmail.com> Wed, 30 October 2013 17:08 UTC

Return-Path: <xiphmont@gmail.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 41DCE11E82D3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:08:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.08
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.08 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.520, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 v+jcpZH-6oxI for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:08:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x22e.google.com (mail-lb0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA34A11E82CB for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:07:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-f174.google.com with SMTP id q8so1447043lbi.5 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:07:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=9+8QBHmRJ6j1j0IWRlHmrSPxRTFDwuKAReh2hbZUxZM=; b=krdzoGT1tGNwWzKK0KNQSplv6D8vk3tntXuLBJzEX8olM3MO2lL+W0rbDlffmalPe0 Ap2Qb8JheMmTxIIOc8SJdsdZnSTFhNUyde7foia4bCqsh1X2jmAywvyS9AWn85Nw1TlS M3+HyRFR3b4NpOiHDupNBPQNoA7UNFd9SfQfxThDqJC6k1VctSCjl9WXhZRLGCiElkMX OSxRoNQlr9KIF3zrW6cSGL72upjpzakth2SsB/Z/E98DeX8C47sVK+5Ateo27DFMpnkf fIf30aeL/8gsWjSU0x/743GxdDdMe+OuVekeC5luIoBBNvjvKesTdAmdddbhaL2qa1/y ATFg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.14.3 with SMTP id l3mr4045341lbc.27.1383152837364; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:07:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.11.48 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:07:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <52713962.3010201@matthew.at>
References: <52681A96.2020904@alvestrand.no> <52713962.3010201@matthew.at>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 13:07:17 -0400
Message-ID: <CACrD=+8DxhuL1rZXCt7xtSC8LThmgh0ojN0FvdHYTXnd1zG1+A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Monty Montgomery <xiphmont@gmail.com>
To: Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <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: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 17:08:07 -0000

> This is a little dramatic. One can trivially prove that every technology
> required to implement H.264 will lose the protection of the patent system in
> a finite period of time. Much, much sooner than "forever".

Had the Web been patented, those patents would just now be starting to
expire.  I was a slender, handsome undergraduate back then.  Sure
feels like forever.

Monty

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email