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

Re: [W3C Web and TV IG] Adaptive streaming MPEG DASH liaison

From: Steve Lhomme <slhomme@matroska.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 18:35:47 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTing_TLn4sw6mvuQMB-ijN_Nvz2ZR2KS7xrrYBKL@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rob Glidden <rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net>
Cc: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>, "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com>, Gerard Fernando <gerardmxf@yahoo.co.uk>, "juhani.huttunen@nokia.com" <juhani.huttunen@nokia.com>, "hj08.lee@lge.com" <hj08.lee@lge.com>, "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
Well this is a W3C mailing list, do the ISO rules apply there too ?
I'm not sure if I fall in the category participant or non-participant.

Also I assume patents should be discussed on the MPEG side of things ?
Given what is "presented" to W3C should be royalty free anyway.

I'm new to all this...

Steve

On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Rob Glidden <rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> ISO disclosure obligations are clearly documented at
> http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc29/29w7proc.htm.  Short incomplete summary:
> proposers, preparers and liaisons "shall", participants "should",
> non-participants "may", multiple other shalls and shall nots.
>
> Slickly-worded AFAIKs to the contrary, DASH as-is has multiple
> patent-disclosed normative references (and outstanding patent call).
>
> For one, the UK Intellectual Property Office offers a freedom-to-operate
> search service, but there are many private services.
>
> "[G]ood reasons to hope for an outcome" and "requirements/recommendations
> should be reasonable and also provide a basis for discussion/negotiation and
> not require a yes/no answer" look like code for a belief that W3C should
> bend its royalty-free policy.  I disagree.
>
> Rob
>
> On 3/19/2011 2:54 AM, Steve Lhomme wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Mark Watson<watsonm@netflix.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>> There are no known patents AFAIK. If someone turns up with a solid patent
>>> and insists they deserve royalties for it, then I've no doubt it will be
>>> profiled out. But we are nowhere close to that yet and it's unlikely
>>> anyway
>>> for the reasons I've described. We should not assume we are in that
>>> situation unless and until we actually get there, that is all.
>>> ...Mark
>>
>> If I find such a patent, should I disclose it ? And even if there is
>> none known as of today, what is the guarantee there won't be one
>> published tomorrow ? In which case the patent holder may well seek
>> retribution from a booming business. Among the companies/organisations
>> there will be those who can afford to pay anyway, and those who can't
>> and will have to abandon the technology and still being threatened for
>> having used it in the past, and leave the market to those who can
>> afford.
>>
>> What are the guarantees that this cannot happen ? Is the MPEG, 3GPP
>> and/or W3C responsible for doing a deep patent search to make sure it
>> can be declared royalty free ?
>>
>> Side Note: shouldn't it be a service provided by patent offices anyway ?
>>
>
>



-- 
Steve Lhomme
Matroska association Chairman
Received on Saturday, 19 March 2011 17:36:21 UTC

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