Re: [rtcweb] Proposal for H.263 baseline codec

Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> Thu, 29 March 2012 17:13 UTC

Return-Path: <silviapfeiffer1@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 95CC421F89FC for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:13:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 MHuYwkhMadcT for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:13:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B507F21F8444 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:13:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yhkk25 with SMTP id k25so1815451yhk.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:13:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qari2bzzd81q1vYXmos+GJxzApEBPSzRXXqGdcTVASc=; b=isSTXw80Hll7wAxJTozNtRCVmA/bKGD5+wURbdNiUqACE8rV+64stKCnpBqdvNMOLt GpcuhxSQV8/CWIFyB2FSiZ5BDp0xLLcYq1Yvp+loWth8/a8YWBpL/IAEB55jPvmaVDet 2nVahY4kOHqfRpSvNbT21GaeEmgxHCrL+TLmRtXsSYI8rugd2eHHWk6E5zY+0ns4PfVY kU9eEngWsUSIkg1lKbOv3G4C9CdYrxus76wIm2sWvnakwfBrZwU+NJ4K/VeSCUVIB07L X+Q1bAzfS+I40yF8Nnf7ImCmw/oqml4FGqXl++szKylLKyS86Lkeke9wMvQBR0NeNnGY FLLA==
Received: by 10.236.170.165 with SMTP id p25mr34378514yhl.123.1333041204055; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:13:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.147.99.3 with HTTP; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:12:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CB9A367A.85338%stewe@stewe.org>
References: <4F746163.5090506@hidayahonline.org> <CB9A367A.85338%stewe@stewe.org>
From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:12:52 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2nyNAaYYdFms+ZRx1uZTWVvi623B9Pb8GARtnNcEtxmMg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposal for H.263 baseline codec
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: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 17:13:25 -0000

Very interesting discussion. Out of personal curiosity, I have some
questions inline.

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 7:20 AM, Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org> wrote:
>
> The most commonly cited timeline for a widely in use technology to be
> "save" from a patent viewpoint, based on equitable defenses such as laches
> (in the US) is six years.

Very interesting to know the usually used limit on the number of
years. IIUC that would make Speex, Vorbis and Theora "save" codecs,
since they were released in 2003, 2000, and 2004 respectively?


> In addition, as I pointed out in the meeting, the use of a video codec
> created by a body such as MPEG or ITU-T SG16 has the advantage of that the
> patents of all participating players are available at least under
> Reasonable and Non Discriminatory (RAND) terms.  This may sound like a Bad
> Thing if you operate under a business model that prevents you to pay
> anything for patent licenses, but it is surely a Good Thing if you are
> willing to dish out a moderate amount of money for a license.

So, what is the situation with H.263 and patent licensing? Is what
Larry wrote in 2003 in this email still valid?
http://lists.mpegif.org/pipermail/mp4-tech/2003-October/002771.html
My Web search hasn't turned up any more up-to-date information on
this, so it seems there are several patents associated that are still
valid for H.263 and there is no patent pool for it, thus requiring
every user of H.263 to come to separate license arrangements with each
patent holder?

Note: These are just questions of clarification - I am not implying
any codec preferences in this email.

Regards,
Silvia.