- From: Guido Grassel <guido.grassel@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:31:11 +0200
> > As for the mobile argument - Theora has been demonstrated to work on > chips using HW acceleration, so I cannot really see a problem with > that. I would greatly appreciate any pointers to publicly available reports on such demonstrations. Thanks! BTW, we might know each other from the Univ of Mannheim, DE. I studied there. Greetings - Guido > > Regards, > Silvia. > > On Dec 12, 2007 7:35 PM, <guido.grassel at nokia.com> wrote: >> Silvia, >> >> By definition submarine patents are patents nobody knows of, >> except its >> owners, who might just wait until a deep pocket company has shipped a >> considerable amount of products before requesting this company to >> compensate them for their IP they are using in this product. W3C >> has no >> possibility to detect or even prodect from these patents. Pls see our >> position paper of the W3C Video on the Web workshop. >> >> The other issue that might have gotten less attention in recent >> mailing >> list and Slashdot discussion is the availability of chipsets that >> support a considered codec for desktop and embedded environments. >> Silicon support is essential for battery-powered devices. A pure SW >> implementation of a codec will be slower and will drain the >> battery way >> faster than a codec that relies on HW accelleration. >> >> But lets examine the outcome of the W3C workshop. >> >> Cheers >> - Guido >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org >>> [mailto:whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org] On Behalf Of ext >>> Silvia Pfeiffer >>> Sent: 12 December, 2007 08:24 >>> To: Dave Singer >>> Cc: WHATWG Proposals >>> Subject: Re: [whatwg] several messages regarding Ogg in HTML5 >>> >>> On Dec 12, 2007 11:38 AM, Dave Singer <singer at apple.com> wrote: >>>> Possible action: >>>> >>>> The members of the WG are engineers, not IPR experts. There >>> is general >>>> consensus that a solution is desirable, but also that engineers are >>>> not well placed to find it: >>>> a) they are not experts in the IPR and licensing field; >>>> b) many of them are discouraged by their employers from reading >>>> patents or discussing IPR. >>>> >>>> It's clear that the December workshop cannot be silent on this >>>> subject. There must be recognition of the issue and evidence of at >>>> least efforts to solve it, and preferably signs of progress. >>>> >>>> It is probable that this is best handled in parallel with the >>>> technical work, and headed by someone 'technically neutral' and >>>> qualified, such as W3C technical and legal staff. A good >>> start would >>>> be to: >>>> a) examine the declaration, licensing, and patent expiry >>> situation for >>>> various codecs; >>>> b) contact the licensing authorities for various codecs to >>>> determine >>>> their level of interest and flexibility, and possibly invite >>>> them to >>>> the December workshop. >>> >>>> c) analyze the open-source codecs for their risk level, and >>>> possibly >>>> seek statements from patent owners if that is deemed prudent; >>> >>> What was the consensus on the "what to do" question? I would >>> be quite interested to get c) undertaken and see how real the >>> submarine patent threats are. Is that a real possibility for >>> the W3C to do (I mean: >>> financially speaking)? >>> >>> Also, if there is any potential that large patent owners could >>> make statements about the applicability of their patents to >>> these open specifications, the let's try it! >>> >>> Regards, >>> Silvia. >>> >>
Received on Thursday, 13 December 2007 05:31:11 UTC