- From: Rob Glidden <rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net>
- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:49:49 -0700
- To: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- CC: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>, 이현재 <hj08.lee@lge.com>, "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>, Steve Lhomme <slhomme@matroska.org>
Kazuyuki: 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: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2011Mar/0091.html 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. Rob 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, <rigo@w3.org>, > 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, <kaz@w3.org> is reserved for one of my old team mates, > and so it would be appreciated if you could use <ka@w3.org> or > <ashimura@w3.org> instead. > > # Sorry I was not aware of that error when we sent the letter to 3GPP... > > [1] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2011Mar/att-0029/W3C_MPEG_Letter__mw_.pdf > > 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: >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2011Mar/0042.html >> >> ...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 :public-web-and-tv@w3.org <mailto:public-web-and-tv@w3.org> >>> To : Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com <mailto:watsonm@netflix.com>> >>> Cc : Steve Lhomme <slhomme@matroska.org >>> <mailto:slhomme@matroska.org>>, Ali C. Begen \(abegen\) >>> <abegen@cisco.com <mailto:abegen@cisco.com>>, Gerard Fernando >>> <gerardmxf@yahoo.co.uk >>> <mailto:gerardmxf@yahoo.co.uk>>,juhani.huttunen@nokia.com >>> <mailto:juhani.huttunen@nokia.com>, 이현재 수석연구원 >>> (hj08.lee),public-web-and-tv@w3.org <mailto:public-web-and-tv@w3.org> >>> 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"<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 ? >>>>>> >>> >>> <W3C to MPEG DASH Liaison.docx> >> >
Received on Monday, 21 March 2011 22:50:28 UTC