- From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 19:34:20 -0700
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Cc: Alexander Adolf <alexander.adolf@me.com>, "W3C Web+TV W3C Web+TV IG" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <AANLkTikEA-2CKo+NrG2C9JukkORA+QKa4g7HpLYKFNPs@mail.gmail.com>
Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding of my intention in previous statements. I fully support RF based technology. My primary question before was related to the practicality of requesting an organization to restate their IPR terms a posteriori. On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>wrote: > Just keep in mind that on the Web everyone and their dog are a > (potential) publisher. And since we want all publishers to use the > same compatible technology, FRAND is simply not an option. I'd rather > develop a completely new format if there is such a potential threat in > DASH. It's not that hard to develop a different proposal and if it > means freedom for the Web, then this is a lot more useful. > > Regards, > Silvia. > > > On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Alexander Adolf <alexander.adolf@me.com> > wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > > > On 2011-02-22, at 18:34 , Mark Watson wrote: > > > >> On Feb 21, 2011, at 7:01 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: > >> > >>> Let's just say I find the claim "if DASH is not RF then it will not be > successful, since there are RF alternatives... that noone is ever going to > make any money out of royalties on this thing" to be both naive and > idealistic. > >> > >> Well, it's interesting that you think there is a business case in > licensing DASH IPR for those that have it. I think it very unlikely that > Netflix would ever pay royalties for something like that which we know we > can easily work around. > >> [...] > > > > I think both, Glenn and Mark have a point here. Although I wouldn't > subscribe to all of their conclusions. > > > > In the 15+ years of my digital broadcast work, I have never ever seen > anyone really making noteworthy money with IPR. So I'd agree to that there > is no serious business case for IPR. The environments I have been working in > are working on FRAND (where "F" is for fair) terms, and it has worked out. > In the case of broadcast, for a century. ;) In all cases I am aware of, the > IPR-givers did not make their money on the licence fees, but on the > consultancy for integrating their tech into products. But then nobody is > forced to buy their services if one thinks yer own engineers are good > 'nough. > > > > Remember that the things the "big wigs" give away for free is because > they can re-finance the development from other income, not because they > think the Web is such a great place that we all should have a free lunch. > What they buy with that is a little bit of market control. That's the > management level equation. > > > >> On Feb 21, 2011, at 7:01 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: > >> > >>> Let's just say I find the claim "if DASH is not RF then it will not be > successful, since there are RF alternatives... > >>> [...] > > > > I think I might clarify that to say "...then it will not be successful ON > THE WEB." It may still be successful in environments where FRAND terms are > common practice and accepted, like IPTV and Cable. > > > > So I guess the RF vs. (F)RAND debate might still be going on for a while. > Not for everybody may it be the end of the world and freedom as such if > their tech is not on the Web; since there are other domains where it will be > deployed. And maybe the Web community will have to swallow one or two > decisions of this sort, that sth. will not be available on the Web because > the IPR holders refuse to make it RF. I guess both sides will be on a > learning curve here. Where will or should this end? My crystal ball is > mucky... > > > > Then Mark also has a point of course: > >> [...] > >> I think it very unlikely that Netflix would ever pay royalties for > something like that which we know we can easily work around. > >> [...] > > > > > > This is the Chinese model. Take the original, and tweak it until it > becomes RF. This is a good approach in terms of business model. But it is > IMHO a not so good approach in terms of cross-sector convergence. It would > cement the trench between the broadcast and Web domains; and I thought we > were working to bridge it? > > > > So my compromise proposal would be this: if it turns out that sth. (I > agree with Mark that the probability for DASH is low) turns out to be not > RF, for once ask "if it's not free, what would the licence fees be the?" > Listen to the answer, and keep in mind that such terms are *always* > negotiable. Then consider whether you have been talking to Mr. Evil Devil > himself, or whether the tech offered is really so great that folks would be > willing & able to survive with the licence. > > > > Just my two cents anyway. > > > > BTW, anyone attending #dvbw11 in Nice next week? > > > > > > Thanks a lot and cheers, > > > > --alexander > > > > -- > > Condition-ALPHA Digital Broadcast Technology Consulting Alexander Adolf > > EMAIL alexander.adolf@me.com XMPP c-alpha@jabber.org > > WEB www.condition-alpha.com AIM alexander.adolf@me.com > > MOBILE +49 151 12722124 TWITTER @c_alpha > > TEL +49 89 52314163 GEO Gabelsbergerstrasse 60b > > UST-IDNR./VAT-ID DE268430335 80333 Munich / Germany > > PUBKEY 5B30 94FB 7F2C E404 D977 3830 7FBE 74F3 17EC F239 > > > > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 3 March 2011 02:35:49 UTC