Re: [Xiph-Advocacy] Fwd: [whatwg] Video codec requirements changed

Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Dec 10, 2007 10:54 PM, Conrad Parker <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On the other hand, the new wording also specifies:
>>
>>  "...; we need a codec that is known to not require per-unit or per-distributor
>>   licensing, that is compatible with the open source development model, that is
>>   of sufficient quality as to be usable, ..."
>>
>> which actually makes the case for Ogg stronger. The previous draft stated no
>> such requirements. As no rationale was given for choosing Ogg, that
>> recommendation was easy to attack, hence the flamewars on the whatwg list.
> 
> Half-empty, Half-full.   True, the new text adds requirements which
> are good, not just for Ogg/Theora+Vorbis but for the general good of
> the public.
> 
> In fact the text is so good for Ogg that it pretty much spells out
> Ogg/Theora+Vorbis exactly... which makes it all the more disappointing
> that Ogg/Theora+Vorbis was removed at the same time.
> 
> The claim that the prior proposal created a distinct vulnerability is
> rubbish: The W3C isn't going to be able to escape patent risks so long
> as they seek to specify the behavior of software and not abstract
> mathematical algorithms which live only on paper.  If the text
> accurately reflects the W3C's wishes, it is effectively demanding the
> impossible. That last requirement alone excludes all possibilities. It
> might as well say "the W3C will not suggest a codec".
> 

The potential risk of submarine patents isn't limited to a/v codecs;
it applies to any standard the W3C will ever create and probably
most of those they already have.  If only this was a charade to
demonstrate how US software patents hurt innovation (that is, an
intentional, benevolent charade rather than an unintentional
malicious one).

<sits back to watch the USA legislate itself out of all future
technological development>

-- 
imalone