- From: Rob Glidden <rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net>
- Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:41:38 -0700
- To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
- CC: "Ali C. Begen \(abegen\)" <abegen@cisco.com>, Gerard Fernando <gerardmxf@yahoo.co.uk>, "juhani.huttunen@nokia.com" <juhani.huttunen@nokia.com>, "hj08.lee@lge.com" <hj08.lee@lge.com>, "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4D83C382.8040201@sbcglobal.net>
This completely backwards. Just remove the known patents until a royalty-free grant is obtained. Rob On 3/18/2011 11:02 AM, Mark Watson wrote: > > On Mar 18, 2011, at 10:22 AM, Ali C. Begen (abegen) wrote: > >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Gerard Fernando [mailto:gerardmxf@yahoo.co.uk] >>> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 1:01 PM >>> To: Ali C. Begen (abegen); juhani.huttunen@nokia.com >>> <mailto:juhani.huttunen@nokia.com>; watsonm@netflix.com >>> <mailto:watsonm@netflix.com>; rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net >>> <mailto:rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net> >>> Cc: hj08.lee@lge.com <mailto:hj08.lee@lge.com>; >>> public-web-and-tv@w3.org <mailto:public-web-and-tv@w3.org> >>> Subject: Re: [W3C Web and TV IG] Adaptive streaming MPEG DASH liaison >>> >>> I totally disagree. No point wasting time asking a "non-pushy" >>> question as MPEG is likely to send back a useless answer. >>> Better to ask a blunt question as then you are likely to get a >>> straightforward/clear answer. >>> >>> Could it be that some folks are worried by the likely answer from >>> MPEG - which is that DASH (in it's current state with >>> normative references to other standards) can't be made RF that easily. >> >> On the contrary I am hopeful that stakeholders will come forward and >> say they will offer their IPRs in RF basis. >> >> -acbegen > > Agreed. Some already have. > > And please bear in mind the nature of the technology we are talking > about here. We are talking about *data formats* for a manifest and > media file, not client or server procedures, which are not defined by > DASH. The manifest concept is well established in various deployed > technologies and would be followed by any other adapative streaming > that W3C could come up with anyway. > > I find it hard to see how there could be any significant IPR worthy of > royalties that is /essential/ to this specification. That's just my > opinion, but I urge others to take a closer look at what we are > actually talking about and form their own views rather than assuming > that just because it's MPEG people will be expecting to make > significant money out of this. > > ...Mark > > >> >>> Gerard >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> From: Ali C. Begen (abegen) <abegen@cisco.com <mailto:abegen@cisco.com>> >>> To: juhani.huttunen@nokia.com <mailto:juhani.huttunen@nokia.com>; >>> watsonm@netflix.com <mailto:watsonm@netflix.com>; >>> rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net <mailto:rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net> >>> Cc: hj08.lee@lge.com <mailto:hj08.lee@lge.com>; >>> public-web-and-tv@w3.org <mailto:public-web-and-tv@w3.org> >>> Sent: Fri, 18 March, 2011 8:15:00 >>> Subject: RE: [W3C Web and TV IG] Adaptive streaming MPEG DASH liaison >>> >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org >>>> <mailto:public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org> >>>> [mailto:public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of >>>> juhani.huttunen@nokia.com <mailto:juhani.huttunen@nokia.com> >>>> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 8:45 AM >>>> To: watsonm@netflix.com <mailto:watsonm@netflix.com>; >>>> rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net <mailto:rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net> >>>> Cc: hj08.lee@lge.com <mailto:hj08.lee@lge.com>; >>>> public-web-and-tv@w3.org <mailto:public-web-and-tv@w3.org> >>>> Subject: RE: [W3C Web and TV IG] Adaptive streaming MPEG DASH liaison >>>> >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I am supporting Mark’s proposal (attached). That is right to the >>>> point of the Royalty Free question and still avoids to be >>>> unnecessarily pushy towards MPEG. >>> >>> +1. Being pushy will not get us anything useful in the desired time >>> frame. >>> >>> -acbegen >>> >>>> The letter sent to 3GPP by Web and TV Interest Group chairs is not >>>> the best reference to copy as such here because that >>>> letter was created without consulting and was not reviewed by the >>>> Web and TV Interest Group members before sending to >>>> 3GPP. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I believe that the more open-minded question in the liaison letter >>>> concerning MPEG DASH licensing will lead to the best >>>> response without excluding any options. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Juhani >>>> >>>> **************************************** >>>> >>>> Juhani Huttunen >>>> >>>> Senior Solutions Manager >>>> >>>> Compatibility and Industry Collaboration, NOKIA >>>> >>>> Address: Keilalahdentie 2-4, 02150 Espoo, FINLAND >>>> >>>> Mobile: +358 40 581 1138 >>>> >>>> e-mail: juhani.huttunen@nokia.com <mailto:juhani.huttunen@nokia.com> >>>> >>>> **************************************** >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org >>>> <mailto:public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org> >>>> [mailto:public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of ext Mark Watson >>>> Sent: 18 March, 2011 07:19 >>>> To: Rob Glidden >>>> Cc: ???; public-web-and-tv@w3.org <mailto:public-web-and-tv@w3.org> >>>> Subject: Re: [W3C Web and TV IG] Adaptive streaming MPEG DASH liaison >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 17, 2011, at 8:46 PM, "Rob Glidden" >>>> <rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net <mailto:rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Mark: >>>> >>>> If the whole standard is RF, RF profile work won't delay anything. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It's not an a priori property of the specification. What we do, the >>>> options we leave open, discourage or encourage, can >>> affect >>>> the outcome. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I believe that there are companies that may well be able to commit >>>> to terms compatible with the W3C policy. But if we >>> kick >>>> off a formal 'RF profile' process now it kicks the question way >>>> down the road and there will be no early clarity on this >>> issue. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I'm not saying that early clarity is certain, but I feel now is >>>> exactly the wrong time to give, up as you propose. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> If RF profile work is delayed, then assertions (3rd party or other) >>>> can await opportune moment >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Quite the reverse. A formal RF process removes any sense of urgency >>>> regarding clarification of terms. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Such happens. There's never a quick fix for RF, just due diligence >>>> on multiple fronts. >>>> >>>> Original response succinctly conveys W3C's royalty-free policy, >>>> which shouldn't budge. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The best way to convey the W3C policy is to link to it, perhaps >>>> with a quote. I think paraphrase/characterization is >>> absolutely >>>> the wrong way to convey these things. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ...Mark >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Rob >>>> >>>> On 3/17/2011 3:49 PM, Mark Watson wrote: >>>> >>>> Rob, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I don't understand what you mean by "And the response doesn't put >>>> W3C validating the well-known blocking/quick-fix/FUD >>>> tactic of delaying RF profiles until it is too late.". >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It seems that by jumping immediately into a process for definition >>>> in MPEG of an RF profile we completely set ourselves up >>>> for delay. Not that I think anyone will be interested in making >>>> that process deliberately longer than necessary, but because >>> by >>>> its nature it won't be fast. It's by no means certain that anyone >>>> has essential IPR or that if they do they will expect royalties >>>> for it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> My proposal was shorter than the original & I think pretty simple >>>> and clear. It is more open than your proposal in terms of >>>> the options going forward but does not exclude the option you suggest. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ...Mark >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 17, 2011, at 3:14 PM, Rob Glidden wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Simple, helpful and appropriate W3C response to the MPEG request to >>>> consider DASH profiles: >>>> >>>> "We would like to draw your attention particularly to DASH’s >>>> profiles defined in DIS and would welcome W3C to provide its >>>> needs and suggestions to improve them to better fit W3C’s needs." >>>> >>>> Is the same that was sent to 3GPP: >>>> >>>> "We would very much appreciate if you could inform us of the >>>> current status of the specification of DASH and the possibility >>>> to work together on a royalty free profile of the specification for >>>> potential integration of DASH as adaptive streaming >>>> mechanism for audio and video in HTML. " >>>> >>>> An RF profile might not have to fully unring the already-wrung RAND >>>> bell. And the response doesn't put W3C validating the >>>> well-known blocking/quick-fix/FUD tactic of delaying RF profiles >>>> until it is too late. >>>> >>>> The original 3GPP text is fine, a short liaison response is not a >>>> good venue for more complexity right now. >>>> >>>> Rob >>>> >>>> >>>> On 3/17/2011 7:57 AM, Mark Watson wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Rob, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> At the workshop I suggested that we should not immediately go down >>>> the road of requesting a "RF profile". That view >>>> seemed to have general support. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Requesting an "RF profile" implies starting a new process in MPEG >>>> which could not be complete for some time. It >>>> immediately excludes the possibility that the specification could >>>> be used by W3C as is. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> What I proposed in my text is significantly different from asking >>>> MPEG simply to follow their existing process. I suggested >>> to >>>> "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." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> i.e. to explicitly ask them to look at the W3C policy and state >>>> whether the terms they offer could be compatible with that. It >>> is >>>> possible that companies are able to offer terms which allow the >>>> goals of that policy to be met but which are different from >>>> ticking the "Option 1" box. We should at least allow that >>>> possibility to be explored, before jumping to a formal RF process in >>>> MPEG. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ...Mark >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 16, 2011, at 11:46 AM, Rob Glidden wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I think the previous version of paragraph 3, which asks >>>> specifically about working on a royalty-free profile, is more on point. >>>> >>>> MPEG members are already under obligations to disclose patents and >>>> state whether they will license as RAND or RF. The >>>> latest publicly posted call for patents including DASH was dated >>>> October, 2010 (N11610) and is at "Standards under >>>> development for which a call for patent statements is issued >>>> <http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/hot_news.htm> ". 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. >>>> >>>> As an exemplar, the MPEG ad hoc group on Type-1 coding has a >>>> publicly announced mandate (N11842) of refining Type-1 >>>> (i.e. royalty free) Requirements and a publicly announced meeting >>>> <http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/meetings/daegu11/daegu_ahg.htm> >>>> prior to the next MPEG meeting. >>>> >>>> Rob >>>> >>>> On 3/16/2011 8:33 AM, Mark Watson wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> Attached (doc & pdf) are some proposed changes, along the lines of >>>> my previous comments on the 3GPP letter. Note that >>> the >>>> "and has the goal..." text that I added regarding the Patent Policy >>>> is taken from the Patent Policy itself: I think it is always >>> best >>>> with legal aspects like this just to quote, rather than paraphrase >>>> or characterize: the legal text is usually worded the way it >>> is >>>> for good reasons. >>>> >>>> I didn't fully understand the fourth paragraph, or why it would be >>>> of interest to MPEG, so I suggest to delete it. But since I >>>> didn't fully understand it I may have missed the intent. >>>> >>>> ...Mark >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 15, 2011, at 6:56 PM, ì´í˜„재 wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Dear IG members, >>>>> >>>>> As we shared our common interest of single solution necessity of >>>>> adaptive streaming on the browser last Berlin. We >>>> sent liaison letter to 3GPP right after Berlin. We will send same >>>> context to MPEG DASH scheduled to next week. >>>>> I drafted from 3GPP letter and added reply to MPEG DASH intention. >>>>> The tone/content of letter is intentionally >>>> adjusted mild for initiating discussion and get initial feedback. >>>>> >>>>> The recipient of this letter will be MPEG convener Leonardo >>>>> because liaison letter is sent from him. CCed to Iraj >>>> DASH chair. >>>>> The sender of this letter will be W3C Web and TV IG chairs on >>>>> behave of W3C Web and TV IG members. Even >>>> though the recipient of the letter was W3C. >>>>> >>>>> Please feel free to comment on the draft by this weekend. Sorry >>>>> for the hurried update. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> HJ >>>>> --------------- >>>>> Dear Mr. Convener and DASH experts, >>>>> >>>>> The W3C has recently launched a Web and TV Interest Group, set to >>>>> identify requirements and potential solutions to >>>> ensure that the Web will function well with TV. >>>>> >>>>> During the second W3C Web and TV workshop, held in Berlin on 8-9 >>>>> February 2011, it came to our attention that >>>> many participants of the workshop are interested in getting single >>>> solution of adaptive streaming on the browser. One of >>> the >>>> potential possibilities is DASH. As a result, Web and TV Interest >>>> Group(IG) co-chairs would like to convey this interest from >>>> workshop participants and IG members to MPEG DASH experts, and to >>>> inquire about the licensing status of DASH. W3C has >>> a >>>> strict royalty-free patent policy on the technologies that get >>>> adopted as core Web technologies. >>>>> >>>>> We would very much appreciate if you could inform us of the >>>>> current status of the specification of DASH and the >>>> possibility to work together on a royalty free profile of the >>>> specification for potential integration of DASH as adaptive >>>> streaming mechanism for audio and video in HTML. >>>>> >>>>> As we see MPEG DASH is general enabler architectural framework for >>>>> a starting point. Adaptive streaming for Web >>>> and TV specific discussion (for example, profiling from DASH, when >>>> DASH is chosen as baseline) would better be placed in >>> the >>>> special working group from Web and TV activity. >>>>> >>>>> MPEG DASH experts willing to discuss the topic with participants >>>>> of the Web and TV Interest Group may use the >>>> public public-web-and-tv@w3.org <mailto:public-web-and-tv@w3.org> >>>> mailing-list, whose archives are publicly available at: >>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/ >>>>> >>>>> Companies and individuals willing to know more about W3C and W3C >>>>> process may get in touch with Francois >>>> Daoust < <mailto:fd@w3.org> fd@w3.org <mailto:fd@w3.org>> and >>>> Kazuyuki Ashimura < <mailto:kaz@w3.org> kaz@w3.org >>>> <mailto:kaz@w3.org>>, W3C staff >>> contacts >>>> for the Web and TV Interest Group. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Yosuke, Giuseppe, Mashahito, HJ (chairs of W3C Web and TV IG) >>>>> On behalf of the W3C Web and TV IG members. >>>>> >>>>> --------------- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
Received on Friday, 18 March 2011 20:42:27 UTC