W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2012

Re: Encrypted Media proposal: Summary of the discussion so far

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:00:18 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDAz2gEOuS3MB_ipHoTK9AVSEMU0v-_6qNU9LjWFxz3Tbg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Cc: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, public-html@w3.org
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote:
>> Confirmation that the development of CDM "key systems" is covered by the
>> W3C Patent Policy: should a company decide that they want to create their
>> own CDM, and they do so, they should not face face IP litigation from W3C
>> members. Each existing CDM vendor, who is also a w3c member, would check
>> their patent holdings for relevant IP. A fictional example would be
>> "Encryption of a network video stream and management of a collection of keys
>> for decoding of the data".
>
> nothing in the proposal requires a specific CDM to be covered by W3C PP; nor
> does the W3C PP or PD require this; so you are asking for something that is
> out of scope; this is no different from someone defining a canvas context
> that is IPR encumbered and publishing its availability via
> canvas.getConext("anEncumberedCanvasContext");

Once again, *please* stop attempting to derail conversations about the
badness of CDMs by falsely claiming they are "out of scope".

CDMs are novel, essential pieces of technology for the API.  There is
*no reasonable argument* for calling them "out of scope".

The argument about canvas contexts is misleading.  Canvas contexts can
*theoretically* be royalty-encumbered or closed-source, but all of the
current specced or proposed contexts are RF and open-source.  Both you
and Mark Larson (and internal discussion I'm privy to) have indicated
that the CDMs that will be used by Netflix and other major video
distributors will be royalty-encumbered and/or closed-source.  Thus
this is not a theoretical concern.


> further, the W3C PP does not, in general, indemnify W3C members from one
> another
>
>>
>> My understanding is that companies should be able to create and maintain
>> CDM providers without fear of competitive patent disputes.
>
>
> the W3C PP is no guarantee against patent disputes, so this is a red herring
>
> IANAL, but it seems that you may wish to consult one to formulate questions
> that are reasonably in scope of the W3C PP and PD;

The W3C PP *is* a guarantee against patent disputes for patents
involved in the relevant spec and owned by W3C Members in the relevant
WG.  Members in the WG are required to offer an RF license without
field-of-use restrictions for all essential technologies.  That's the
*entire point* of the PP.

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2012 21:01:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:30 UTC