Dear Phillip Hallam-Baker,
I have some issues with the way that the section on IPR is written.
While I agree with most of the statements there. I don't see my two
biggest IPR concerns listed.
1) Specific to this document, we already have unencumbered CODECs that
permit encoding of audio and video with acceptable fidelity and
adequate compression for 95% of all purposes. Thus it is essential
that the IPR regime for any future CODEC strictly limits the cost of
using that technique to some portion of the cost savings from
reduction in bandwidth use.
[Christian Hoene] Bandwidth vs. quality is just one out of many
characterizing features of a codec. Codecs also differ in latency,
complexity, switching characteristics, bandwidth scalability, APIs, etc. To
that respect, the WG codec is making a unique codec.
Remember, at the successful codec BOF it was agreed that there is a need for
a new codec happing unique features. Or shall we start this discussion
again, here?
2) The principal concern I have with IPR licensing in general is not
the cost of licensing but the difficulty of licensing. I have on
several occasions been in negotiations with an IPR holder who is
completely unable to decide how much money they want or on what terms
they are willing to offer their IPR.
[Christian Hoene] Yes, this is also happening here - at least with one set
of IPR claims.
But luckily, some very big players will lead us the way making the path
towards using the codec smoother. For example, if a big player would use the
codec in some open source projects, then many other small companies would
follow without doing all the negotiations and IPR checks.
3) Linked to that is the problem of uncertainty. A purported rights
holder can only grant a license for the rights they hold, they cannot
and will not provide a warranty with respect to any other rights.
While due to the lingering effects of submarine patents it is
impossible to know if any CODEC is completely unencumbered, it is a
very safe bet that the audio codecs used for cinema sound in the mid
1980s are now unencumbered. It is not possible to be confident that
any new audio codec is unencumbered.
[Christian Hoene] Making a well-known, open source, and (hopefully)
standardized codec is an efficient way to figure out, whether somebody has
submarine patents.
But then again, submarine patents may exist for any new technology, any
protocol, or any other codec out here.
Taken in combination, I cannot imagine any reason to use any audio
codec other than MP3 or AC2 (or some other similar legacy scheme) once
we can be assured that the corresponding patents have expired. I
really could not care less what fidelity or other benefits might be
claimed for them. Bandwidth and storage are much cheaper than the
financial benefits offered by the technology held by the rights
holders.
[Christian Hoene] As said above, the Opus codec is going to be different and
we need it.
With best regards,
Christian Hoene
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf