W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > December 2007

[whatwg] several messages regarding Ogg in HTML5

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 06:05:17 +1100
Message-ID: <2c0e02830712131105r2fbf431dx979563f1e47a624e@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Guido,

These are two relevant threads. Feel free to join the theora-dev
mailing list and discuss with the respective people:

http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/theora-dev/2007-August/003329.html
(FPGA support)
http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/theora-dev/2007-August/003349.html
(LEON support)

And: yes, we did study together  but let's talk privately :-)

Regards,
Silvia.

On Dec 14, 2007 12:31 AM, Guido Grassel (Nokia-NRC/Helsinki)
<guido.grassel at nokia.com> wrote:
> >
> > As for the mobile argument - Theora has been demonstrated to work on
> > chips using HW acceleration, so I cannot really see a problem with
> > that.
>
> I would greatly appreciate any pointers to publicly available reports
> on such demonstrations.
> Thanks!
>
> BTW, we might know each other from the Univ of Mannheim, DE. I
> studied there.
>
> Greetings
> - Guido
>
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Silvia.
> >
> > On Dec 12, 2007 7:35 PM,  <guido.grassel at nokia.com> wrote:
> >> Silvia,
> >>
> >> By definition submarine patents are patents nobody knows of,
> >> except its
> >> owners, who might just wait until a deep pocket company has shipped a
> >> considerable amount of products before requesting this company to
> >> compensate them for their IP they are using in this product. W3C
> >> has no
> >> possibility to detect or even prodect from these patents. Pls see our
> >> position paper of the W3C Video on the Web workshop.
> >>
> >> The other issue that might have gotten less attention in recent
> >> mailing
> >> list and Slashdot discussion is the availability of chipsets that
> >> support a considered codec for desktop and embedded environments.
> >> Silicon support is essential for battery-powered devices. A pure SW
> >> implementation of a codec will be slower and will drain the
> >> battery way
> >> faster than a codec that relies on HW accelleration.
> >>
> >> But lets examine the outcome of the W3C workshop.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> - Guido
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org
> >>> [mailto:whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org] On Behalf Of ext
> >>> Silvia Pfeiffer
> >>> Sent: 12 December, 2007 08:24
> >>> To: Dave Singer
> >>> Cc: WHATWG Proposals
> >>> Subject: Re: [whatwg] several messages regarding Ogg in HTML5
> >>>
> >>> On Dec 12, 2007 11:38 AM, Dave Singer <singer at apple.com> wrote:
> >>>> Possible action:
> >>>>
> >>>> The members of the WG are engineers, not IPR experts. There
> >>> is general
> >>>> consensus that a solution is desirable, but also that engineers are
> >>>> not well placed to find it:
> >>>> a) they are not experts in the IPR and licensing field;
> >>>> b) many of them are discouraged by their employers from reading
> >>>> patents or discussing IPR.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's clear that the December workshop cannot be silent on this
> >>>> subject.  There must be recognition of the issue and evidence of at
> >>>> least efforts to solve it, and preferably signs of progress.
> >>>>
> >>>> It is probable that this is best handled in parallel with the
> >>>> technical work, and headed by someone 'technically neutral' and
> >>>> qualified, such as W3C technical and legal staff.  A good
> >>> start would
> >>>> be to:
> >>>> a) examine the declaration, licensing, and patent expiry
> >>> situation for
> >>>> various codecs;
> >>>> b) contact the licensing authorities for various codecs to
> >>>> determine
> >>>> their level of interest and flexibility, and possibly invite
> >>>> them to
> >>>> the December workshop.
> >>>
> >>>> c) analyze the open-source codecs for their risk level, and
> >>>> possibly
> >>>> seek statements from patent owners if that is deemed prudent;
> >>>
> >>> What was the consensus on the "what to do" question? I would
> >>> be quite interested to get c) undertaken and see how real the
> >>> submarine patent threats are. Is that a real possibility for
> >>> the W3C to do (I mean:
> >>> financially speaking)?
> >>>
> >>> Also, if there is any potential that large patent owners could
> >>> make statements about the applicability of their patents to
> >>> these open specifications, the let's try it!
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Silvia.
> >>>
> >>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 13 December 2007 11:05:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:38 UTC