W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-and-tv@w3.org > March 2011

Re: RF-ness (was:" Re: Workshop notes and next steps")

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 19:34:20 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTikEA-2CKo+NrG2C9JukkORA+QKa4g7HpLYKFNPs@mail.gmail.com>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexander Adolf <alexander.adolf@me.com>, "W3C Web+TV W3C Web+TV IG" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding of my intention in previous
statements. I fully support RF based technology. My primary question before
was related to the practicality of requesting an organization to restate
their IPR terms a posteriori.

On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
<silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>wrote:

> Just keep in mind that on the Web everyone and their dog are a
> (potential) publisher. And since we want all publishers to use the
> same compatible technology, FRAND is simply not an option. I'd rather
> develop a completely new format if there is such a potential threat in
> DASH. It's not that hard to develop a different proposal and if it
> means freedom for the Web, then this is a lot more useful.
>
> Regards,
> Silvia.
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Alexander Adolf <alexander.adolf@me.com>
> wrote:
> > Dear Colleagues,
> >
> > On 2011-02-22, at 18:34 , Mark Watson wrote:
> >
> >> On Feb 21, 2011, at 7:01 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
> >>
> >>> Let's just say I find the claim "if DASH is not RF then it will not be
> successful, since there are RF alternatives... that noone is ever going to
> make any money out of royalties on this thing" to be both naive and
> idealistic.
> >>
> >> Well, it's interesting that you think there is a business case in
> licensing DASH IPR for those that have it. I think it very unlikely that
> Netflix would ever pay royalties for something like that which we know we
> can easily work around.
> >> [...]
> >
> > I think both, Glenn and Mark have a point here. Although I wouldn't
> subscribe to all of their conclusions.
> >
> > In the 15+ years of my digital broadcast work, I have never ever seen
> anyone really making noteworthy money with IPR. So I'd agree to that there
> is no serious business case for IPR. The environments I have been working in
> are working on FRAND (where "F" is for fair) terms, and it has worked out.
> In the case of broadcast, for a century. ;)  In all cases I am aware of, the
> IPR-givers did not make their money on the licence fees, but on the
> consultancy for integrating their tech into products. But then nobody is
> forced to buy their services if one thinks yer own engineers are good
> 'nough.
> >
> > Remember that the things the "big wigs" give away for free is because
> they can re-finance the development from other income, not because they
> think the Web is such a great place that we all should have a free lunch.
> What they buy with that is a little bit of market control. That's the
> management level equation.
> >
> >> On Feb 21, 2011, at 7:01 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
> >>
> >>> Let's just say I find the claim "if DASH is not RF then it will not be
> successful, since there are RF alternatives...
> >>> [...]
> >
> > I think I might clarify that to say "...then it will not be successful ON
> THE WEB." It may still be successful in environments where FRAND terms are
> common practice and accepted, like IPTV and Cable.
> >
> > So I guess the RF vs. (F)RAND debate might still be going on for a while.
> Not for everybody may it be the end of the world and freedom as such if
> their tech is not on the Web; since there are other domains where it will be
> deployed. And maybe the Web community will have to swallow one or two
> decisions of this sort, that sth. will not be available on the Web because
> the IPR holders refuse to make it RF. I guess both sides will be on a
> learning curve here. Where will or should this end? My crystal ball is
> mucky...
> >
> > Then Mark also has a point of course:
> >> [...]
> >> I think it very unlikely that Netflix would ever pay royalties for
> something like that which we know we can easily work around.
> >> [...]
> >
> >
> > This is the Chinese model. Take the original, and tweak it until it
> becomes RF. This is a good approach in terms of business model. But it is
> IMHO a not so good approach in terms of cross-sector convergence. It would
> cement the trench between the broadcast and Web domains; and I thought we
> were working to bridge it?
> >
> > So my compromise proposal would be this: if it turns out that sth. (I
> agree with Mark that the probability for DASH is low) turns out to be not
> RF, for once ask "if it's not free, what would the licence fees be the?"
> Listen to the answer, and keep in mind that such terms are *always*
> negotiable. Then consider whether you have been talking to Mr. Evil Devil
> himself, or whether the tech offered is really so great that folks would be
> willing & able to survive with the licence.
> >
> > Just my two cents anyway.
> >
> > BTW, anyone attending #dvbw11 in Nice next week?
> >
> >
> > Thanks a lot and cheers,
> >
> >  --alexander
> >
> > --
> > Condition-ALPHA Digital Broadcast Technology Consulting Alexander Adolf
> > EMAIL alexander.adolf@me.com          XMPP c-alpha@jabber.org
> > WEB www.condition-alpha.com           AIM alexander.adolf@me.com
> > MOBILE +49 151 12722124               TWITTER @c_alpha
> > TEL +49 89 52314163                   GEO Gabelsbergerstrasse 60b
> > UST-IDNR./VAT-ID DE268430335          80333 Munich / Germany
> > PUBKEY 5B30 94FB 7F2C E404 D977  3830 7FBE 74F3 17EC F239
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Thursday, 3 March 2011 02:35:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:44:02 UTC