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: Rob Glidden <rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 18:18:05 -0700
Message-ID: <4D86A74D.8040605@sbcglobal.net>
To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
CC: Steve Lhomme <slhomme@matroska.org>, "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>
Mark:

Working offline on compromise text sounds like a promising approach, 
thanks for proposing.

Rob

On 3/20/2011 2:24 PM, Mark Watson wrote:
> Rob,
>
> You are missing the point, and misrepresenting my position.
>
> I am not saying that W3C should relax its RF policy in any way. Can we 
> just take that off the table and stop with the accusations ?
>
> I am also not saying that ISO and MPEG should not undertake work that 
> is explicitly RF from the outset. Indeed I believe it would be a good 
> thing for them to do so more often.
>
> What I am saying is that /in this instance/ and /at this stage/ 
> compatibility with the W3C patent policy is not the same thing as a 
> formal RF Profile in MPEG. There are better options for W3C which 
> should be explored. This does not mean that W3C should accept anything 
> less than usual in terms of RF commitments for its specifications, 
> just that those commitments might not come in the form of RF 
> declarations in MPEG.
>
> I also want to say that most of us are not lawyers. I'm uncomfortable 
> with a liaison to MPEG using terms like "strict RF policy" and "RF 
> profile" which could have legal or other meanings we do not 
> understand. We should just state W3C's requirement: "compatibility 
> with the W3C patent policy" and ask if DASH can meet that bar. The 
> lawyers can work out what is required for that. They are paid well enough.
>
> To be more explicit, and as a hypothetical example, there may be 
> companies with IPR in the DASH specification who would happily license 
> that RF for use with WebM. But those same companies might have IPR in 
> H.264 and would not be happy to grant an RF license if you're using it 
> with H.264 but not paying your H.264 license fees. There could be a 
> W3C adaptive streaming specification based on WebM that was as RF as 
> any other W3C specification, but still there might not be universal RF 
> statements in MPEG. RAND does not imply royalty-bearing.
>
> I think I have said all I need to on this: Netflix is not one of the 
> hypothetical companies in the paragraph above. We are W3C members and 
> more than happily support the W3C policy. But I want there to be space 
> for outcomes which allow W3C to use all of the DASH technology on an 
> RF basis.
>
> If you are interested in working offline on compromise text, I'm very 
> open to that. Otherwise it seems we do not have consensus on this list 
> on what to ask MPEG at this time.
>
> ...Mark
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 19, 2011, at 2:41 PM, Rob Glidden wrote:
>
>> As a RAND standard, DASH seems entirely above-board, with its 
>> references, wordings, months-long patent calls and so forth.  I for 
>> one see no fault in the prospect of a RAND result from a RAND 
>> process, that's the idea after all.
>>
>> But for royalty-free "hopes" to be shunted to parsing whether 
>> "indispensible" means "essential", proving negatives, breath-holding, 
>> "believing" etc etc, all while any official process is delayed ...
>>
>> ... yes, even too-slick by half.  Unhappiness warranted, just 
>> misplaced.  There is every right and reason to expect ISO (and W3C) 
>> to support royalty-free work along lines:
>>
>> When you begin, don't put it in.
>> When in doubt, throw it out.
>> When you're done, recheck with everyone.
>>
>> Rob
>>
>> On 3/19/2011 10:50 AM, Mark Watson wrote:
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> On Mar 19, 2011, at 10:24 AM, "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).
>>> I'm sorry, but I am not trying to deceive anyone here and I'm not especially happy with that accusation.
>>>
>>> Can you tell me a single disclosed essential patent on DASH itself ? Of course, if you use it with H.264 or other codecs or containers with patents of their own then you will be subject to those. And of course the DASH specification has normative references to those things, but they are not essential to DASH.
>>>
>>> The technology actually in the DASH specification for manifest formats isn't yet subject to any patent disclosures that I have am aware of and I would expect to be aware of them. I qualify my statements only because I am not a lawyer and this is all legally sensitive stuff.
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>> Well, just to be clear, am not proposing any change to that policy. My proposed text to MPEG asks companies explicitly whether they offer terms such that DASH could be used given the W3C policy. I just don't think that necessarily implies a formal option 1 process at this stage.
>>>
>>> ...Mark
>>>
>>>> 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 ?
>>>>>
>>
>
Received on Monday, 21 March 2011 01:18:58 UTC

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