Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection

H.263 seems to be covered by the MPEG-4 Visual patent pool and appears 
to require licensing:

http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/M4V/Documents/M4VCrossRef.pdf

Maik

Am 18.11.2013 09:11, schrieb Thomas Reisinger:
> Thank you Leon. Why should we go with h.261 (except the lower cpu
> requirements for en/decoding), when we have a very popular royalty free
> h.263 as a common base for most video participants?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Thomas Reisinger
>
> *From:*Leon Geyser [mailto:lgeyser@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Montag, 18. November 2013 08:13
> *To:* rtcweb@ietf.org
> *Cc:* Basil Mohamed Gohar; Thomas Reisinger
> *Subject:* Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
> On this list there seem to be patents listed from 1997 to 2011 for H.263:
>
> http://www.itu.int/net4/ipr/search.aspx?sector=ITU&class=PS&country=-1&org=-1&rec=H.263&prod=H.263&ps_country=-1&opt=-1&field=anokwcvd
>
> On 18 November 2013 08:51, Thomas Reisinger <treising75@gmail.com
> <mailto:treising75@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Team,
>
>     I had the same concerns about the royalty fee, but after some
>     research I think there aren't any more. For h.264 this still
>     applies. H.261 is not acceptable anymore in a HD world as it is
>     today. Maybe somebody else cloud put some light on the royalty fees
>     for h.263. I will continue my research.
>
>     Cheers,
>
>     Thomas Reisinger
>
>
>      > On 17.11.2013, at 21:58, Basil Mohamed Gohar
>     <basilgohar@librevideo.org <mailto:basilgohar@librevideo.org>> wrote:
>      >
>      > Thomas,
>      >
>      > The reason H.261 is even being considered is because it is an
>     old-enough
>      > specification that any patents on it should have now expired.
>       Patents,
>      > and their liability on existing video formats, are amongst the
>     biggest
>      > factors affecting which formats can be adopted into the rtcweb
>     standard.
>      >
>      > H.263 most likely (I haven't checked) still has patents
>     associated with
>      > it that are active and, therefore, present an issue unless the
>      > respective owners of said patents have publicly declared them
>     royalty-free.
>      >
>      >> On 11/17/2013 03:13 PM, Thomas Reisinger wrote:
>      >> Hi,
>      >>
>      >> Instead of h.261, I would recommend h.263 as a common base.
>      >>
>      >> Cheers,
>      >>
>      >> Thomas
>      >> Sent from mobile device
>      >>
>      >>> On 17 Nov 2013, at 20:54, Maik Merten
>     <maikmerten@googlemail.com <mailto:maikmerten@googlemail.com>> wrote:
>      >>>
>      >>> Hello,
>      >>>
>      >>> just wondering if something like
>      >>>
>      >>> "9. All entities SHOULD support both H.264 and VP8. All
>     entities MUST at least implement one of those. Entities that do not
>     support both H.264 and VP8 MUST implement H.261."
>      >>>
>      >>> has already popped up. My reasoning is that implementations
>     supporting both high performance codecs will always negotiate to use
>     on of those - H.261 should never be relevant there.
>      >>>
>      >>> It appears that all implementors are willing to implement
>     either H.264 or VP8 (but not necessarily both). This obviously means
>     that negotiation failure regarding a high-performance codec is a
>     possiblity. In this case H.261 is actually useful so that basic
>     video calls can still be established (for instance, I guess deaf
>     people may always appreciate a video connection, as long as sign
>     language can be transmitted).
>      >>>
>      >>>
>      >>> Maik
>      >>>
>      >>>
>      >>> Am 14.11.2013 12:37, schrieb Jeremy Fuller:
>      >>>> Hi,
>      >>>> Gaining IETF consensus on making it mandatory to support only
>     H.264 or
>      >>>> only VP8 has clearly failed. I would welcome anyone to share their
>      >>>> thoughts on why they believe this situation will change
>     anytime in the
>      >>>> next few years.  Therefore, can I suggest that we remove items
>     1 and 2
>      >>>> from the list. Hopefully this will speed up the process by
>     focusing
>      >>>> efforts towards gaining agreement on one of the remaining options.
>      >>>> The following alternatives has been proposed:
>      >>>>
>      >>>> 1. All entities MUST support H.264
>      >>>> 2. All entities MUST support VP8
>      >>>> 3. All entities MUST support both H.264 and VP8
>      >>>> 4. Browsers MUST support both H.264 and VP8, other entities MUST
>      >>>>   support at least one of H.264 and VP8
>      >>>> 5. All entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8
>      >>>> 6. All entities MUST support H.261
>      >>>> 7. There is no MTI video codec
>      >>>> 8. All entities MUST support H.261 and all entities MUST
>     support at
>      >>>>   least one of H.264 and VP8
>      >>>>
>      >>>> Regards,
>      >>>> Jeremy Fuller
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>> _______________________________________________
>      >>>> rtcweb mailing list
>      >>>> rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
>      >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>      >>>>
>      >>>
>      >>>
>      >> _______________________________________________
>      >> rtcweb mailing list
>      >> rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
>      >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>      >>
>      >
>      >
>      > --
>      > Libre Video
>      > http://librevideo.org
>      >
>     _______________________________________________
>     rtcweb mailing list
>     rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>