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

[whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims

From: Krzysztof Żelechowski <giecrilj@stegny.2a.pl>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 12:42:37 +0100
Message-ID: <1197718957.7533.48.camel@a1dmin.vola.spe.com.pl>

Dnia 14-12-2007, Pt o godzinie 22:06 -0800, Joseph Daniel Zukiger pisze:

> Has someone made the precise suggestion I made?
> Specifically:
> (1) Require (MUST) a container/codec not known to be
> encumbered for the <video> tag.
> (2) Require an open plugin API for the browser, so
> that 3rd-party implementations can be dropped in, and
> allow the requirement of (1) to be met by a third
> party plugin.
> (3) Mention Ogg as an example of container/codecs
> which are not presently known to be encumbered.
> I guess I can see a problem with that if it turns out
> that someone can make ogg appear to be encumbered. So
> it would probably need 
> (4) Allow the requirement of (1) to be waived, or
> commuted to the next best thing available under RAND
> terms in the event that there are no implementations
> not known to be encumbered.

The codec required must be specified explicitly by name, otherwise the
online world will go apart.  The statements above do not make a good
solution because they are not precise enough.

> PS: 
> (5) Take this issue to the US Congress to explain how
> "strong" "IP" laws actually do interfere with
> innovation by anyone but 800 ton^H^H^H pound gorillas.

Do you think we have a representative among us?  Besides, I think they
are smart enough to know that.  It does not help much because they are
"encumbered" themselves.  Make a donation to nosoftwarepatents.org and
stop bringing it up here.

Received on Saturday, 15 December 2007 03:42:37 UTC

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