Subject: [rtcweb] Proposal for Theora baseline codec

From: Monty Montgomery <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:09:28 -0400

If we're suggesting ten+ year-old codecs with low patent risk, let's
choose an obviously higher performance example.  Dare I say it...
Theora?

I think we've gotten off track.

Twelve years ago, oblique threats were made against the nascent Vorbis
by Thomson and the whole world decided it was a patent risk.  It never
was.  Fool me once, shame on you.

In the mid 2000s, people started picking on Theora the same way, and a
few years ago Steve Jobs [and Larry Horn, et al] informed the world he
was coming after us. Nothing came of it.  Fool me twice, shame on me.

Now we have the same substance-less muttering about VP8, suggesting
that it's better to use leftover crumbs from 20 years ago.

Fool me three times, I should begin to wonder if I have the requisite
capacity to be engaging in technical endeavors.

Monty
Xiph.Org

---

From: Basil Mohamed Gohar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:17:40 -0400

> capacity to be engaging in technical endeavors.
+1

VP8 is the only option that makes any sense for WebRTC going forward. 
It is high performant, it has optimizations for realtime usage (in the
reference implementation), it is already implemented in a wide variety
of software (Skype, browsers [Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome, Opera]),
and it is also implemented in hardware (as well as supported by the
Android OS).

No one can say something will never be the target of a lawsuit.  But
there *are* legal protections against organizations that assert patents
against a standard after its adoption when they had the ability to make
the standards body aware of it ahead of time (estoppel).

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:33:30 +0000

Hi Monty,
Couldn't it be that no one went after Vorbis and Theora because the
rightholders had no real incentive to do so?  For example, because the
products implementing Vorbis, in their vast majority, also included MP3
and/or AAC, and the rightholders would have to deal with patent exhaustion
arguments and whatnot after having gotten their money; and because theora
deployment never reached a critical mass because it was a) not good enough
technically, and b) felt to be too risky?
I would turn your argument around: the (comparatively speaking) lack of
commercial success of vorbis and theora, and the success of royalty
bearing standard codecs, suggest to me only that no one was fooled, except
perhaps the enthusiastic followers of those folks who keep pushing out one
"free" codec after another...
Stephan

On 3.29.2012 16:09 , "Monty Montgomery" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>

---

From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:34:49 +0200

> and it is also implemented in hardware (as well as supported by the

So are you saying that Adam's presentation today was incorrect?

Quoting:

"H.264:

More deployed hardware acceleration
Well known, clearly identified patent pool; royalties due for some uses
Quality, compression ratio, and complexity approximately equal to VP8

VP8:

Can be hardware accelerated, but current deployment is very low
No specific patents asserted1, no one collecting royalties
Quality, compression ratio, and complexity approximately equal to
H.264"

If so I think you need to be a little more technically specific as to why you see one better than the other.

Regards

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of Basil Mohamed Gohar
> Sent: 29 March 2012 15:18
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposal for Theora baseline codec
>

---

From: Basil Mohamed Gohar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:39:10 -0400

> If so I think you need to be a little more technically specific as to why you see one better than the other.
I'm not saying that.

What I am saying, and what I left out of that short list above, is that
VP8's royalty-free basis and patent grant from the only known owners of
patents on the technology, *in addition* to its technical suitability,
make it the only choice that makes any sense.

-- 
Libre Video
http://librevideo.org

---

From: Monty Montgomery <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:43:54 -0400

> rightholders had no real incentive to do so?  For example, because the
[...]

The opposing argument neatly boils down to 'no one ever got fired for
buying from IBM'.  That specific sentiment seems quaint now, but the
point is still relevant.

Monty
Xiph.Org

---

From: Basil Mohamed Gohar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:47:05 -0400

> "free" codec after another...
Stephan,

Monty already pointed out that sabre-rattling already happened.  Had
there been any meat to the threats, then it would have been ridiculous
not to have pursued them.  Mozilla implements both Theora and Vorbis in
browser, and do not implement MPEG-related codecs, and they're a
lucrative target (they're getting around $1 billion from Google in the
coming few years).  They *do* have a commercial entity that could be the
target, as well.

The real threat was that these formats posed a risk to the other formats
monopolistic adoption, and the FUD that was spread every time these
formats were presented in a standard or appeared poised to be adopted
more widely, the sabre-rattling began again, and no real threats
materialized.

It's arguing by saying, "You never can be sure...".

-- 
Libre Video
http://librevideo.org

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:03:39 +0000

HI Basil,
Really interesting discussion.  Top-posting this time, as I have to run.
Yes, saber-rattling was present.  Is present.  It worked in the past,
plus/minus Mozilla, didn't it?  That's the whole idea behind
sabre-rattling.  It's better than sabre-swinging.  More diligently put,
warning of potential infringement is better than to punish an infringer.
Cheaper, and serves the purpose.
And thinking of a Mozilla as a juicy target (based on the numbers you
cited) seems to me a bit of a far fetch, considering a) the percentage of
multimedia codecs on a web browser's value proposition even today (let
alone 5-10 years ago), and b) the monetary damages asked in high-profile
patent lawsuits today.
Stephan

---

From: Basil Mohamed Gohar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:08:14 -0400

> alone 5-10 years ago), and b) the monetary damages asked in high-profile
I disagree.  If there was a real, defensible infringement, then engaging
in a license agreement would be the far wiser approach than to warn of
infringement.  This would be the tactic when a technology one has
patents on can be displaced by another which may-or-may-not infringe. 
Being replaced by another technology is a real threat to revenue.  Being
replaced by a technology that one can also extract licenses from, is not
a threat.  Therefore, sabre-rattling only makes sense when there's the
real threat to ones existing revenue stream, and one doubts litigation
will be in their favor.

-- 
Libre Video
http://librevideo.org

---

From: Jean-Marc Valin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:16:29 -0400

> technically, and b) felt to be too risky?

Whatever the reason might have applied to Vorbis, it seems like would
also apply to VP8. I've also heard similar arguments about "nobody going
after Speex mainly because nobody with deep pockets is using it". That's
despite the fact that Speex is being shipped by companies like
Microsoft, Google, Apple and CISCO. You would have thought someone would
have sued if they had something. Similarly, Vorbis is also shipped by
(at least) Microsoft and Google and we haven't heard of anything. In
fact, the only codec related patent lawsuits/threats I'm aware of all
involve ITU/MPEG codecs with established patent pools around them. So if
anything, I'd say VP8 might be safer from unexpected risks than H.264

	Jean-Marc

---

From: Jean-Marc Valin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:50:18 -0400

On 29/03/12 11:03 AM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
>  That's the whole idea behind

Actually, I thought it was the other way around. Those who actually have
valid claims swing without warning to maximize damages. Those who cannot
swing, rattle and scare others in the direction of codecs for which they
hold patents.

	Jean-Marc