|
Why MPEG-2? MPEG-2 video is MPEG-1 video plus interlace support. Do we want interlace? More to the point, do we want to burden our decoders to implement interlace support (which is non-trivial) when no sane encoder would send interlace in a PC or mobile
environment, even if the bitstream format would allow for it?
Stephan
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, 4 December, 2013 at 05:53 To: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Subject: RTCWeb proposal I propose the following as a way out of the current RTCWeb MTI issue.
* The MTI codec is motion JPEG.
* From 2018 on, the MPEG2 codec is also MTI.
The rationale for this is as follows:
* There is no decision process that can arrive at a choice between H.264 and AV8.
Parties that have already purchased access to H.264 are not going to purchase access for a second codec simply to enable other parties to gain access to a codec for free. Using AV8 without purchasing access to the necessary patents
would open them up to a major litigation risk and potential damages awards in the billions of dollars and/or having their products subject to injunctions without any benefit to themselves.
* The proposed vote is manifestly unfair and subject to legal challenge in a jurisdiction of the plaintiff's choice.
Taking a vote in the IETF is not going to settle the matter and would only expose the IETF itself to the risk of litigation. It would not surprise me if one or more parties applied for a court injunction to prevent a vote. The eligibility
criteria for participating in the vote were only revealed after the ability to become eligible had passed. Whatever the justification the ADs and WG chairs might imagine for this approach it is not one that the courts are likely to be impressed with. With
several billion dollars in potential damages at risk and a certainty of tens of millions of dollars in legal fees fighting additional IP claims, litigation against the IETF is certain.
* The WG does not have the right to make decisions for the IETF
The criteria for adopting standards is IETF consensus, not WG consensus. The proposed mechanism excludes the majority of the IETF membership from the decision which will inevitably be appealed. So the ultimate decision body inside the
IETF is the IAB.
* The proposed MTI codecs are widely implemented and require minimal or no additional implementation effort in a Web application.
* The proposed MTI codecs are good enough to permit applications to interoperate.
* Development of an alternative codec is impractical since any effort would take much longer than the expiry of the remaining MPEG2 patents and the resulting specification would be vulnerable to IP claims regardless of the effort taken
to avoid encumbered techniques. There is simply too much encumbered art. Prior art is only a defense against damages, it does not protect against the costs of defending a case.
The only codec work which might be of value is to look at the patent pool and see if a subset of the MPEG2 standard could be defined with a shorter encumbrance period. I note that one of the longest patent expiries is for a tagging
scheme providing for backward compatibility with MPEG1. But I don't read patents unless I am being paid to do so and I doubt anyone else does for fun.
|