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


Your note [1] below is incorrect, that refers to an an old version.  
Mark, HJ, and Gerard (and myself) are referring to HJ's new version at:

The confusion seems to be caused by a problem at the W3C archive, which 
resulted in the .ccs getting the email but not the alias itself.


On 3/21/2011 2:22 PM, Kazuyuki Ashimura wrote:
> Hi Mark and all,
> Thank you so much for putting this letter together!  And I am very
> sorry I could not respond to you earlier due to the terrible
> earthquakes etc...
> Your generated draft [1] looks great to me and it seems both HJ
> and Giuseppe are happy with it, but I still would like feedback
> from Yosuke and Masahito, the other co-Chairs of the IG, as well.
> I do not think they strongly object to this text, though.  I will
> ask them to respond to you on the list.
> Regarding the legal contact, it should be Rigo Wenning, <>,
> as Francois mentioned in his message, but I personally think it should
> be OK at the moment to put Francois and myself as the initial contact
> for that point as well.
> BTW, I just want a minor editorial change on my email address.
> Unfortunately, <> is reserved for one of my old team mates,
> and so it would be appreciated if you could use <> or
> <> instead.
> # Sorry I was not aware of that error when we sent the letter to 3GPP...
> [1] 
> Thanks,
> Kazuyuki
> On 03/22/2011 05:02 AM, Mark Watson wrote:
>> HJ,
>> Not sure if your email went to the list. It's not in the archive.
>> I am fine with your proposed text. I would suggest adding a legal 
>> contact: Francois mentioned a name in his email: 
>> ...Mark
>> On Mar 20, 2011, at 8:05 PM, 이현재 wrote:
>>> Dear IG members and interested participants,
>>> Thanks for the active discussion so far.
>>> I tried to merge majority opinion for better correspondence.
>>> It might still be unsatisfactory to some opinion, however, please 
>>> accept this as the starting between the two important standard bodies.
>>> If there are no serious concern on this version, I'll send it to 
>>> MPEG around Tuesday.
>>> Best regards,
>>> HJ
>>> Hyeonjae Lee
>>> DTV Research Lab,
>>> LG Electronics, Seoul, Korea
>>> Office : +82-2-2102-0234
>>> Mobile: +82-10-3388-9783
>>> ---------- Original Message ----------
>>> From <>
>>> To : Mark Watson < <>>
>>> Cc : Steve Lhomme < 
>>> <>>, Ali C. Begen \(abegen\) 
>>> < <>>, Gerard Fernando 
>>> < 
>>> <>>, 
>>> <>, 이현재 수석연구원 
>>> (hj08.lee), <>
>>> Date : 11/3/20 6:43:14
>>> Subject : 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"<>  wrote:
>>>>> ISO disclosure obligations are clearly documented at
>>>>>  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<>   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 ?
>>> <W3C to MPEG DASH Liaison.docx>

Received on Monday, 21 March 2011 22:50:28 UTC