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(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com<mailto:hallam(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>>
Date: Wednesday, 4 December, 2013 at 05:53
To: IETF Discussion Mailing List
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>>
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.