- From: Rob Glidden <rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net>
- Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:20:20 -0700
- To: Thomas Stockhammer <stockhammer@nomor.de>
- CC: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>, "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: <4D83DAA4.40502@sbcglobal.net>
So from what you say, DASH as-is is heavily encumbered, and until resolved neither RF spec nor profile is viable. W3C policy is clearly royalty-free and there are stakeholders favoring a royalty-free result, encouraging patent holders to come forward with RF declarations. I don't think any of the proposed wordings are intended to imply that W3C's royalty-free IPR policy is anything but reasonable. So all the more reason to just remove the known patents until a royalty-free grant is obtained. Rob On 3/18/2011 2:38 PM, Thomas Stockhammer wrote: > Mark, Rob, Ali, all, > > Disclaimer: This is a purely personal opinion and does not reflect any > opinions of any companies I am representing. > > There is a significant interest to create an ecosystem around > OTT/Internet/HTTP-based streaming by many relevant players in the > market, smaller and bigger ones. On piece in the puzzle is the > necessity and opportunity to create confidence for content providers > and users that converging and widely accepted technology exists. > Therefore, a single standard is a great opportunity and history has > proven that single world-wide accepted standards are incubators for > great business (look at GSM, WiFi, HTML, H.264, etc.). From my > experience working in this area over the last couple of years, the > vast majority of the contributors are interested in creating this > ecosystem and confidence. The concrete business opportunities for > these contributors are not in royalties, but in providing products, > services, content, etc. based on these formats and still have the > ability to differentiate in other areas. In the end, the user does not > care how champions league final or the latest block buster is > delivered, but they are interested that they have access to the > content anytime/anywhere and the quality/user experience is > acceptable/good/great, just as good as possible. > > I am confident that royalties will not be the blocking point in the > acceptance of DASH as a world-wide standard. However, it does not make > any sense to push a question at another SDO for which the SDO can only > answer according to their IPR policy. If, however, the communication > is such that the member companies themselves have some basis to react > and also have a contact person they can talk to in case they have > questions, then there is a great opportunity to resolve the concerns > of the interested players. IPR policies are important, but they are > not the holy grail and are just one piece in the puzzle to create > successful ecosystems. Again, I support that the interested companies > in W3C communicate their requirements/recommendations for adopting > DASH, but these requirements/recommendations should be reasonable and > also provide a basis for discussion/negotiation and not require a > yes/no answer. > > Let's be more positive and let's stimulate communication > > Thomas > > > > On Mar 18, 2011, at 7:02 PM, 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> --------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > > --- > Dr. Thomas Stockhammer (CEO) || stockhammer@nomor.de > <mailto:stockhammer@nomor.de> || phone +49 89 978980 02 || cell > +491725702667 || http://www.nomor-research.com > Nomor Research GmbH - Sitz der Gesellschaft: München - > Registergericht: München, HRB 165856 – Umsatzsteuer-ID: DE238047637 - > Geschäftsführer: Dr. Thomas Stockhammer, Dr. Ingo Viering. > > * > * > > > > >
Received on Friday, 18 March 2011 22:21:15 UTC