Re: [W3C Web and TV IG] Adaptive streaming MPEG DASH liaison

ISO disclosure obligations are clearly documented at 
http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc29/29w7proc.htm.  Short incomplete 
summary: proposers, preparers and liaisons "shall", participants 
"should", non-participants "may", multiple other shalls and shall nots.

Slickly-worded AFAIKs to the contrary, DASH as-is has multiple 
patent-disclosed normative references (and outstanding patent call).

For one, the UK Intellectual Property Office offers a freedom-to-operate 
search service, but there are many private services.

"[G]ood reasons to hope for an outcome" and 
"requirements/recommendations should be reasonable and also provide a 
basis for discussion/negotiation and not require a yes/no answer" look 
like code for a belief that W3C should bend its royalty-free policy.  I 
disagree.

Rob

On 3/19/2011 2:54 AM, Steve Lhomme wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Mark Watson<watsonm@netflix.com>  wrote:
>> There are no known patents AFAIK. If someone turns up with a solid patent
>> and insists they deserve royalties for it, then I've no doubt it will be
>> profiled out. But we are nowhere close to that yet and it's unlikely anyway
>> for the reasons I've described. We should not assume we are in that
>> situation unless and until we actually get there, that is all.
>> ...Mark
> If I find such a patent, should I disclose it ? And even if there is
> none known as of today, what is the guarantee there won't be one
> published tomorrow ? In which case the patent holder may well seek
> retribution from a booming business. Among the companies/organisations
> there will be those who can afford to pay anyway, and those who can't
> and will have to abandon the technology and still being threatened for
> having used it in the past, and leave the market to those who can
> afford.
>
> What are the guarantees that this cannot happen ? Is the MPEG, 3GPP
> and/or W3C responsible for doing a deep patent search to make sure it
> can be declared royalty free ?
>
> Side Note: shouldn't it be a service provided by patent offices anyway ?
>

Received on Saturday, 19 March 2011 17:24:41 UTC