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

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

From: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:02:53 -0700
To: 이현재 <hj08.lee@lge.com>
CC: "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>, Steve Lhomme <slhomme@matroska.org>
Message-ID: <DAD68628-195F-499D-8F17-DF12AA365C1A@netflix.com>
HJ,

Not sure if your email went to the list. It's not in the archive.

I am fine with your proposed text. I would suggest adding a legal contact: Francois mentioned a name in his email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2011Mar/0042.html


...Mark

On Mar 20, 2011, at 8:05 PM, 이현재 wrote:


Dear IG members and interested participants,



Thanks for the active discussion so far.

I tried to merge majority opinion for better correspondence.

It might still be unsatisfactory to some opinion, however, please accept this as the starting between the two important standard bodies.



If there are no serious concern on this version, I'll send it to MPEG around Tuesday.



Best regards,

HJ


Hyeonjae Lee
DTV Research Lab,
LG Electronics, Seoul, Korea
Office : +82-2-2102-0234
Mobile: +82-10-3388-9783



---------- Original Message ----------

From : public-web-and-tv@w3.org<mailto:public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
To : Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com<mailto:watsonm@netflix.com>>
Cc : Steve Lhomme <slhomme@matroska.org<mailto:slhomme@matroska.org>>, Ali C. Begen \(abegen\) <abegen@cisco.com<mailto:abegen@cisco.com>>, Gerard Fernando <gerardmxf@yahoo.co.uk<mailto:gerardmxf@yahoo.co.uk>>, juhani.huttunen@nokia.com<mailto:juhani.huttunen@nokia.com>, 이현재 수석연구원(hj08.lee), public-web-and-tv@w3.org<mailto:public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
Date : 11/3/20 6:43:14
Subject : Re: [W3C Web and TV IG] Adaptive streaming MPEG DASH liaison



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><mailto: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><mailto: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 ?



<W3C to MPEG DASH Liaison.docx>

Received on Monday, 21 March 2011 20:03:31 UTC

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