IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ron <ron@debian.org> Sat, 21 December 2013 19:31 UTC

Return-Path: <ron@debian.org>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 073CB1AD8F1 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 11:31:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EpRVbM1PJxkj for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 11:31:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net [IPv6:2001:44b8:8060:ff02:300:1:6:6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 733921ADEAE for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 11:31:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppp118-210-62-207.lns20.adl2.internode.on.net (HELO audi.shelbyville.oz) ([118.210.62.207]) by ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 22 Dec 2013 06:01:18 +1030
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by audi.shelbyville.oz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 148264F8F3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Dec 2013 05:55:35 +1030 (CST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at audi.shelbyville.oz
Received: from audi.shelbyville.oz ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (audi.shelbyville.oz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id pHa5P9O5UBBR for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Dec 2013 05:55:34 +1030 (CST)
Received: by audi.shelbyville.oz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 61F094F902; Sun, 22 Dec 2013 05:55:34 +1030 (CST)
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 05:55:34 +1030
From: Ron <ron@debian.org>
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20131221192534.GV3245@audi.shelbyville.oz>
References: <CACrD=+9+X+2Aph6ij-i-3XsuofKXaQ1Cuz7A0EQWFndADgpvuw@mail.gmail.com> <CEDB21B2.3E2AB%stewe@stewe.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CEDB21B2.3E2AB%stewe@stewe.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Counting NOs (Re: Straw Poll on Nokia mincing)
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 19:31:23 -0000

On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 06:47:49PM +0000, Stephan Wenger wrote:
> 
> >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.

You have me curious now.  Have you simply not read the detailed analysis
that shows just how laughably spurious they are, or is your faith in
Texas Juries stronger than any facts?


> 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.

And lots of folks end up paying them for invalid patents on bad technology
too.  Just because a system is horribly broken it doesn't mean smart people
can't fix it.  Being outstandingly better on all terms still beats being
better on either one for desirability, accessibility, and putting and end
to the inviolability myth of a protection racket.

  Win, win, win,
  Ron

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email