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: Rob Glidden <rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:16:21 -0700
Message-ID: <4D87C025.2060006@sbcglobal.net>
To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
CC: 이현재 <hj08.lee@lge.com>, "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>, Steve Lhomme <slhomme@matroska.org>
I'm fine with it too, it addresses my original concern that "W3C just 
asking MPEG to do what it has already done and will do again anyway and 
request its members to do what they are already obligated to do may be 
motivational to someone but is a do-loop."

I'd suggest removing "if possible", but that's a bit nit-ish.  Good to 
see emerging consensus.

Rob

Old: We would very much appreciate if you could inform us of the current 
status of the specification of DASH and request MPEG member companies to 
make clear whether and under what terms the specification  would be 
suitable for adoption by W3C, given the above policy.

New: We would very much appreciate if you could inform us of the current 
status  of the specification of DASH, the possibility to work together 
on adaptive  streaming mechanism for audio and video in HTML and, if 
possible, under what terms the specification would be suitable for this 
cooperative work.


On 3/21/2011 1:02 PM, Mark Watson wrote:
> 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>  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 ?
>>>>>
>>
>> <W3C to MPEG DASH Liaison.docx>
>
Received on Monday, 21 March 2011 21:17:05 UTC

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