[whatwg] several messages regarding Ogg in HTML5

[Guido Grassel (Nokia-NRC/Helsinki)]

>
> 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,  <guido.grassel at nokia.com> 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: whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org
>>> [mailto:whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org] 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 <singer at apple.com> 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.
>>>
>>