- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 06:05:17 +1100
Hi Guido, These are two relevant threads. Feel free to join the theora-dev mailing list and discuss with the respective people: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/theora-dev/2007-August/003329.html (FPGA support) http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/theora-dev/2007-August/003349.html (LEON support) And: yes, we did study together but let's talk privately :-) Regards, Silvia. On Dec 14, 2007 12:31 AM, Guido Grassel (Nokia-NRC/Helsinki) <guido.grassel at nokia.com> wrote: > > > > 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 11:05:17 UTC