Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 10th Mar 2013 13:07 UTC
Permalink for comment 554952
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2011-01-28
Your quote from h-online.com shows this link:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06520.html
But this is in fact a discussion of video quality and efficiency: "Video codec quality evaluations (Re: Agenda time request for draft-dbenham-webrtcvideomti)"
The other links show what we already knew last time, so I'm a bit perplexed about this statement: "Only a few days later, we learn the real reason behind Google and the MPEG-LA striking a deal, thanks to The H Open, making it clear that the MPEG-LA has lost. Big time."
If the links are correct, can you elaborate on the logic for your conclusion? I don't understand how a discussion on codec quality fits into patent negotiation or how MPEG-LA's bluffed? Thanks for clarifying.
Edited 2013-03-10 14:47 UTC