Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

Stefan Slivinski <sslivinski@lifesize.com> Thu, 21 November 2013 23:33 UTC

Return-Path: <sslivinski@lifesize.com>
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 A43DF1AE1B2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 15:33:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 pdW4O24KkWiX for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 15:33:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na3sys009aog125.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog125.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.153]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0F7721ADFE7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 15:33:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail1.lifesize.com ([207.114.244.10]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob125.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUo6YPufkO0AzLPgWN1OofBJt8NOiQhGH@postini.com; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 15:33:21 PST
Received: from ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com ([fe80::edad:d9e3:99d1:8109]) by ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com ([fe80::edad:d9e3:99d1:8109%14]) with mapi; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 17:28:19 -0600
From: Stefan Slivinski <sslivinski@lifesize.com>
To: "'creslin@digium.com'" <creslin@digium.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 17:28:18 -0600
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
Thread-Index: Ac7nDQE6Fr5xRIFBS9ipSUsbJ9AHogABFqQk
Message-ID: <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA8AD7EA@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHZ_z=we6MXUbbWrdxwXQzENBQZv-0Fx4WR6rNM+=_=XN8J-+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "'rtcweb@ietf.org'" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
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: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 23:33:30 -0000

So not to confuse licensing fees with ip infringement litigation but...I should first point out that I am not an expert in this space but I have had a reasonable amount of experience in this area and I can say that many patents are so generic and rarely specific to a particular codec, there may simply be a rate control algorithm patent that has the potential to apply to any video encoder, past/present or future.


----- Original Message -----
From: Matt Fredrickson [mailto:creslin@digium.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 04:57 PM
To: Stefan Slivinski
Cc: juberti@google.com <juberti@google.com>;; fluffy@iii.ca <fluffy@iii.ca>;; rtcweb@ietf.org <rtcweb@ietf.org>;
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

Isn't the point to pick a codec old enough that the codec standard
itself should be considered prior art on any claims made against it?

Matthew Fredrickson

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Stefan Slivinski
<sslivinski@lifesize.com>; wrote:
> Having some experience with patent trolls I have come to the realization
> that if you have means they will sue you for pretty much anything even if
> you do not actually infringe on their patents. You are then in the position
> of fighting them or paying them off.
>
> I think it is naïve to believe you can ever completely avoid IPR by picking
> some archaic codec. I think we need to come up with a different solution to
> defend against infringement claims rather than trying to avoid them
>
>
> From: Justin Uberti [mailto:juberti@google.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 04:31 PM
> To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>;
> Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org <rtcweb@ietf.org>;
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
>
> Even the proposal that recommended H.264 as MTI indicated that the technical
> merit of the currently proposed codecs is equivalent, and the fundamental
> question is IPR.
> http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/88/slides/slides-88-rtcweb-8.pdf
>
> Put another way, if the alleged IPR issues associated with either H.264 or
> VP8 disappeared overnight, this discussion would be instantly over.
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>; wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Nov 21, 2013, at 12:36 PM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>; wrote:
>>
>> > That said, I think the general understanding here is that this is no
>> > longer a technical decision.
>> >
>>
>> I'll note that some people strongly disagree with this is not a technical
>> decision but there are others who do think it is is no longer a technical
>> decision.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>