- From: Steve Lhomme <slhomme@matroska.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 10:11:31 +0100
- To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
- Cc: Rob Glidden <rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net>, "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>
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 10:24 PM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote: > I also want to say that most of us are not lawyers. I'm uncomfortable with a > liaison to MPEG using terms like "strict RF policy" and "RF profile" which > could have legal or other meanings we do not understand. We should just > state W3C's requirement: "compatibility with the W3C patent policy" and ask > if DASH can meet that bar. The lawyers can work out what is required for > that. They are paid well enough. Which lawyers are we talking about here ? From what I understand MPEG is not a "creating" entity by itself, but the sum of all its participants. So I assume that would be the lawyers of each company having IPR in DASH. That means each company has a coordinate effort going in the same direction. That may take a little while. And that's time wasted on the W3C side waiting for DASH to come out with whatever they can propose, which may be nothing in the end. -- Steve Lhomme Matroska association Chairman
Received on Monday, 21 March 2011 09:12:04 UTC