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, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
