- From: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 08:02:28 -0800
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- CC: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com>, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, Jean-Claude Dufourd <jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr>, "Richard Maunder (rmaunder)" <rmaunder@cisco.com>, "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
On Feb 15, 2011, at 11:29 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote: >> >> On Feb 15, 2011, at 4:59 PM, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 18:40 -0500, Ali C. Begen (abegen) wrote: >>>> I think folks need to agree on the container format not the codec type. A good container format will be good for several codecs that exist today and will yet to come. >>> >>> My understanding is that the IP issues surrounding the codec types are >>> also surrounding the container formats and the streaming technologies. >> >> IANAL but I don't think that is quite true. To my knowledge there are no IP issues with the ISO Base Media File Format (ISO/IEC 14496-12) which is one of the more widely used container formats. > > > I believe it is the MPEG-2 systems patent pool that is relevant here: > http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/M2S/Pages/Intro.aspx That would be relevant if you wanted to use DASH with MPEG 2 Transport Streams. But that's just an option and Basic On-Demand profile is based on the ISO Base Media File Format. DASH is not part of MPEG-2 Systems. > > And MPEG-4 systems still has a patent pool, even though licenses are > not offered any more. > http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/M4S/Pages/Intro.aspx > So, again, IANAL, but I believe the ISO Base Media File Format is widely used without anyone paying any royalties to anyone else. The situation with mp4 may be different. ...Mark > Best Regards, > Silvia. > > >> For "streaming technologies", it is my hope that DASH will be Royalty-Free and some companies have already stated that intention in respect of their IPR. >> >> This is a very different state of affairs from codecs such as H.264, for example. >> >> ...Mark >> >>> So, I'd be surprised if any agreement was reached within the HTML >>> Working Group on those topics. I can't imagine a different conclusion >>> that the H.264/Theora discussion at this point. In any case, as Glenn >>> alluded to, HTML has been technology neutral since the beginning. Unless >>> I'm mistaken, we don't require implementations to support a specific >>> image format. >>> >>> Philippe >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 16 February 2011 16:06:19 UTC