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

As a RAND standard, DASH seems entirely above-board, with its 
references, wordings, months-long patent calls and so forth.  I for one 
see no fault in the prospect of a RAND result from a RAND process, 
that's the idea after all.

But for royalty-free "hopes" to be shunted to parsing whether 
"indispensible" means "essential", proving negatives, breath-holding, 
"believing" etc etc, all while any official process is delayed ...

... yes, even too-slick by half.  Unhappiness warranted, just 
misplaced.  There is every right and reason to expect ISO (and W3C) to 
support royalty-free work along lines:

When you begin, don't put it in.
When in doubt, throw it out.
When you're done, recheck with everyone.

Rob

On 3/19/2011 10:50 AM, Mark Watson wrote:
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Mar 19, 2011, at 10:24 AM, "Rob Glidden"<rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net>  wrote:
>
>> 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).
> I'm sorry, but I am not trying to deceive anyone here and I'm not especially happy with that accusation.
>
> Can you tell me a single disclosed essential patent on DASH itself ? Of course, if you use it with H.264 or other codecs or containers with patents of their own then you will be subject to those. And of course the DASH specification has normative references to those things, but they are not essential to DASH.
>
> The technology actually in the DASH specification for manifest formats isn't yet subject to any patent disclosures that I have am aware of and I would expect to be aware of them. I qualify my statements only because I am not a lawyer and this is all legally sensitive stuff.
>
>> 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.
> Well, just to be clear, am not proposing any change to that policy. My proposed text to MPEG asks companies explicitly whether they offer terms such that DASH could be used given the W3C policy. I just don't think that necessarily implies a formal option 1 process at this stage.
>
> ...Mark
>
>> 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 ?
>>>
>>