Category: Open Video

MPEG announced today it is working on a royalty-free MPEG standard in two tracks, one track based on expired MPEG patents and other royalty free technologies and the other based on a proposal that patent holders grant a royalty-free license to a “constrained baseline profile” of the widely used AVC/h.264 standard.

According to the MPEG press release, “Depending on the progress of the two tracks, MPEG will decide, in 2012, whether to choose IVC or WebVC to become an International Standard.”

Given the heavy hitters that are lining up behind these proposals and the significance of the forum of ISO and the MPEG committee, it is worth looking deeper at the public information that has been released on these proposals.

“MPEG Plus” (IVC)

The MPEG press release describes IVC:

“focuses on developing a standard based on MPEG-1 technology which is believed a safe royalty-free baseline that can be enhanced by additional unencumbered technology described in MPEG-2, JPEG, research publications and innovative technologies which are promised to be subject to royalty-free licenses”

Cryptically, a MPEG meeting resolution states “The Requirements subgroup recommends that MPEG members make WG 11 aware of market developments in the space addressed by IVC.”

According to the MPEG meeting resolution, the IVC proposal appears to come from “HKUST, Peking University, Tsinghua University and Zhejiang University”.

“Patent Pool Lite” (WebVC)

According to the MPEG meeting resolution, the WebVC proposal appears to come from “Apple, Cisco, Fraunhofer HHI, Magnum Semiconductor, Polycom, and RIM”.  The MPEG LA website shows that 4 of these (Apple, Cisco, Fraunhofer, and Polycom), are among the 28 existing patent holders in the AVC/h.264 patent pool.

The MPEG press release describes WebVC:

“A second track, called WebVC, is driven by stakeholders of AVC technology. WebVC focuses on the constrained baseline profile from the widely used AVC standard (Rec. ITU-T H.264 | ISO/IEC 14496-10). Proponents of WebVC have indicated that they hope to convince stakeholders to grant a royalty-free license for this technology, which was originally standardized in 2003.”

According to section 3.11.1 the meeting resolutions, it appears that if approved Web Video Coding would become a new part 29 to the AVC/h.264 standard (ISO/IEC 14496-29 – Web Video Coding).

Cryptically, a MPEG meeting resolution states “The Requirements subgroup recommends that proponents of technology for Web Video Coding further improve the support for their proposal in order to meet market needs as identified in the IVC CfP”.

What Will Happen?

As a proponent of “IPR-aware” royalty free standardization (see for example Half of MPEG-2 Patents Expire in 2012), I am naturally inclined to the first track and skeptical of the second.  It seems every few months a patent pool or some one manages to spin up wishful thinking that there will soon be a “new deal” that will answer the needs of royalty free communities, only to cleverly leave the hopeful twisting in the wind.  Indeed, AVC/h.264 has been holding out the prospect of a royalty-free baseline since 2001, when the work on AVC/h.264 was first announced!  And AVC/h.264 patents are still being litigated.

But … one can easily imagine multiple possible outcomes under the oversight of MPEG:

– one, none or both of the proposals end up ultimately adopted, perhaps in a modified or improved form
– the two proposals evolve and are merged down the road
– etc.

My take:  Read the fine print and published patent analysis on any “AVC/h.264 constrained baseline” very, very carefully before you get excited.  And hopefully, ISO and the MPEG committee will continue to do a professional, no-nonsense job in assessing these proposals and moving forward on a royalty-free MPEG standard that the industry can have confidence in.

MPEG has announced it has received proposals for a royalty-free MPEG standard and has settled on a deliberation process to consider them.

The press release is here; the underlying meeting resolution is here.  Relevant portions are copied below.

A short analysis of the proposals is available at: MPEG Plus or Patent Pool Lite? MPEG Mulls Royalty-Free Proposals.

From ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11 N12258, December 2011 – Geneva, CH:

MPEG continues toward royalty-free video coding

At its 98th meeting, MPEG received responses to the Call for Proposals on Internet Video Coding Technologies. As a result, two tracks towards royalty-free video coding are being pursued. One track, called IVC, focuses on developing a standard based on MPEG-1 technology which is believed a safe royalty-free baseline that can be enhanced by additional unencumbered technology described in MPEG-2, JPEG, research publications and innovative technologies which are promised to be subject to royalty-free licenses. A second track, called WebVC, is driven by stakeholders of AVC technology. WebVC focuses on the constrained baseline profile from the widely used AVC standard (Rec. ITU-T H.264 | ISO/IEC 14496-10). Proponents of WebVC have indicated that they hope to convince stakeholders to grant a royalty-free license for this technology, which was originally standardized in 2003.

Depending on the progress of the two tracks, MPEG will decide, in 2012, whether to choose IVC or WebVC to become an International Standard.

————
From Resolutions, the 98th SC 29/WG 11 Meeting, 2011-11-28/12-02, Geneva, Switzerland  [SC 29/WG 11 N 12254:

3.11        Part 29 Web Video Coding

3.11.1        The Requirements and Video subgroups thank Apple, Cisco, Fraunhofer HHI, Magnum Semiconductor, Polycom, and RIM for their response to the CfP on Internet Video Coding.

3.11.2        The Requirements subgroup recommends that proponents of technology for Web Video Coding further improve the support for their proposal in order to meet market needs as identified in the IVC CfP.

3.11.3        The video subgroup recommends to approve of the following documents

No. Title TBP Available
14496-29 – Web Video Coding
12365 Request for subdivision: ISO/IEC 14496-29 N 11/12/02
12366 Working Draft of  ISO/IEC 14496-29 Web Video Coding Y 11/12/19

3.11.4        The availability of N12366 and its publication may be delayed if the Video chairs consider the working draft not sufficiently mature.

15.3        Internet Video Coding

15.3.1        The Requirements and Video subgroups thank HKUST, Peking University, Tsinghua University and Zhejiang University for their response to the CfP on Internet Video Coding.

15.3.2        The Video subgroup recommends approval of the following documents:

No. Title TBP Available
Exploration – Internet Video Coding
12355 Internet Video Coding Test Model (ITM) v 1.0 N 11/12/16
12356 Description of Core Experiments in Internet Video Coding N 11/12/10

15.3.3        The Requirements subgroup recommends that MPEG members make WG 11 aware of market developments in the space addressed by IVC.

———–

MPEG has issued a press release describing its intent to move forward on developing a royalty-free MPEG standard.

The press release is here, relevant part is below.  The meeting resolution approving the press release is here.

************
UPDATE:  This press release was picked up in multiple articles, and most interestingly discussed in the Guardian blog by Florian Mueller.

Guardian: Royalty-free MPEG video codec ups the ante for Google’s WebM/VP8
Slashdot: MPEG Continues With Royalty-free MPEG Video Codec Plans
The Register: Google open video codec faces second challenger: VP8 v MPEG v MPEG LA v acronym chaos
The H: MPEG calling for royalty-free web video codec
LWN:  In other news – “MPEG envisages royalty-free MPEG video coding standard”

************

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION FOR STANDARDISATION
ORGANISATION INTERNATIONALE DE NORMALISATION
ISO/IEC/JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11
CODING OF MOVING PICTURES AND AUDIO

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11 N11703
January 2011 – Daegu, KR

Source: Convenor of MPEG
Status: Approved by WG11
Subject: MPEG Press Release
Date: 28 January, 2011

MPEG envisages royalty-free MPEG video coding standard

Daegu, KR – The 95th MPEG meeting was held in Daegu, Korea from the 24th to the 28th of January 2011.

Highlights of the 95th Meeting

MPEG anticipates March 2011 CfP for Type-1 Video Coding Standard

MPEG has been producing standards that provide industry with the best video compression technologies. In recognition of the growing importance that the Internet plays in the generation and consumption of video content, MPEG intends to develop a new video compression standard in line with the expected usage models of the Internet. The new standard is intended to achieve substantially better compression performance than that offered by MPEG-2 and possibly comparable to that offered by the AVC Baseline Profile. MPEG will issue a call for proposals on video compression technology at the end of its upcoming meeting in March 2011 that is expected to lead to a standard falling under ISO/IEC “Type-1 licensing”, i.e. intended to be “royalty free”.

I’ve been saying for a while that the best way out of the Web video codec mess is formal standardization of a royalty-free video codec and that formal standards groups like MPEG and others should step up to the task.

Of course, I mean a real, bona-fide standardization process, not a dubious rubber-stamping “ratification” nor a half-hearted kick-the-can-down-the-road affair.

Below is a draft personal response to a public call for comments by the ISO MPEG committee on issues related to standardizing a royalty-free video codec.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

(DRAFT) Response to MPEG Request for Comments
on Option-1 (Royalty-Free) Video Coding

At its October 2010 meeting, MPEG requested public comment on industry needs and performance targets for an Option-1 (royalty-free) video codec standard [1].

MPEG should enlarge its portfolio of standards by offering some that are expected to be royalty free [2], taking into account the following points:

Google has proposed ratification of its video codec VP8 as mandatory by IETF, and has stated it will remove h.264 support from Chrome:

In November, 2010, Google filed a proposed Internet-Draft, standards track document for real-time communication over the Web that states:

“In video, the VP8 codec [vp8] MUST be supported..” [3]

As to removing support of h.264 from Chrome, Google stated in January, 2011:

“Specifically, we are supporting the WebM (VP8) and Theora video codecs, and will consider adding support for other high-quality open codecs in the future. Though H.264 plays an important role in video, as our goal is to enable open innovation, support for the codec will be removed and our resources directed towards completely open codec technologies.” [4]

In discussing ratification of VP8 as a mandatory-to-implement specification by IETF even without a formal standardization process, the author of the Google proposed Internet-Draft has opined that making VP8 mandatory to implement is reasonable, and if IETF does not address the issue, proponents “may have to start up a third effort in some forum that’s willing to define the profile needed for interoperability” [5].

The Internet and World Wide Web are fundamentally based on royalty-free standards [6] and therefore need and expect a royalty-free video codec standard [7].

Tim Berners-Lee in an article in the Scientific American in November, 2010 restated the often-stated point that the Web’s richness, diverse user base and different (free and pay) business models require that royalty-free standards are and must be the foundation of the Web:

“The basic Web technologies that individuals and companies need to develop powerful services must be available for free, with no royalties.

… Open, royalty-free standards that are easy to use create the diverse richness of Web sites, from the big names such as Amazon, Craigslist and Wikipedia to obscure blogs written by adult hobbyists and to homegrown videos posted by teenagers.

… Openness also means you can build your own Web site or company without anyone’s approval. When the Web began, I did not have to obtain permission or pay royalties to use the Internet’s own open standards, such as the well-known transmission control protocol (TCP) and Internet protocol (IP). Similarly, the Web Consortium’s royalty-free patent policy says that the companies, universities and individuals who contribute to the development of a standard must agree they will not charge royalties to anyone who may use the standard.

… Open, royalty-free standards do not mean that a company or individual cannot devise a blog or photo-sharing program and charge you to use it. They can. And you might want to pay for it if you think it is “better” than others. The point is that open standards allow for many options, free and not.” [8]

The World Wide Web Consortium recently stated in the context of the much-watched deliberation about a royalty-free codec for the upcoming HTML5 specification:

“The W3C HTML Working Group has not identified a Royalty-Free video codec or container format that would satisfy all parties. … W3C is still highly interested in finding a solution in this space.”[9]

Looking forward, trends like cloud computing, the “Internet of devices”, and the many business models and usage scenarios thriving on the Internet all point to the continuing necessity of placing royalty-free, rather than royalty-bearing, standards at the foundation of the open Internet.

MPEG (WG11 of ISO SC29) has the competence and responsibility to standardize an Option-1 (royalty-free) video codec.

With a 20+ year history, MPEG, now has a portfolio of standards and technologies at or approaching patent expiration from which to assemble a royalty free standard. [10]

MPEG has deliberated at multiple meetings and a quorum of SC29 national bodies have expressed support [11].

The ISO/IEC/ITU patent policy provides a process framework [12], and related bodies like IETF are already moving forward with royalty-free codec standardization [13].

Recent changes in h.264 licensing have been rejected by key Internet industry leadership as inadequate to meet the need for a fully royalty-free standard [14].

As three of many examples, Web browser vendors Mozilla [15], Opera [16], and Google [4] have expressed that these new license terms from MPEG LA are unacceptable to them.

MPEG’s well-established methodology of defining a test model and evaluating improvements to it is the appropriate approach for Option-1 standardization.

MPEG has a long-established and successful work method of defining and then improving a test plan based on pre-defined, rigorous methodology [17].  This test model approach is ideally suited for Option-1, royalty-free standardization, which requires a two-step process of first defining a generic video test model of a known royalty-free foundation, then only allowing additions and modifications of known IPR source and licensing.

It would be unwise, counterproductive, and against long-established MPEG practice for MPEG to publicly set only a “hard” performance target like “a 2x coding gain, in comparison to MPEG-1” for an Option-1 (royalty-free) codec.

A narrow measure of video codec performance is a metric such as image quality (like PSNR) against bandwidth, but the practical reality is that all viable video codec standards activities must and do incorporate trade-offs of multiple features, application profiles and requirements, and platform constraints.

For example, MPEG-2 wisely did not set a hard performance target over MPEG-1; rather, MPEG-2’s core rationale [18] was specifically aimed at adding features like interlace to make the overall standard more generically useful and supportive of specific application profiles:

Rationale

…The general aim of MPEG-2 is to support a broad number of features and operating points which were not the focus of MPEG-1, and in so doing to establish an essentially generic, i.e. application independent standard, which will support a small number of key application profiles.”

Performance-related requirements were only specified as “optimized” image quality, and balanced against multiple parameters like multi-resolution scalability, transmission and storage channel-coding and error-recovery schemes, and  low coding-decoding delay:

“Requirements

MPEG-2 Video extends the capabilities of MPEG-1 with efficient methods to encode interlaced video formats. MPEG-2 Video key requirements include: optimized image quality in ranges from about 3 to 15 Mbit/s; support for various interlaced (as well as progressive) video formats; provision for multi-resolution bit-stream and decoder scalability; random accessibility to support efficient channel-hopping and editability; compatibility with both MPEG-1 and the CCITT H.261 recommendation for video telecommunications; adaptability to various transmission and storage channel-coding and error-recovery schemes; provision for low coding-decoding delay.

And the workplan required only an evaluation process to identify independently confirmable, appreciable improvements in picture quality to make improvements in a short time:

“ Workplan

… A video test model has been established, and several key modules in its algorithmic block diagram are subject to improvement up until March 1993.  For a proposed alternative to be selected to replace the current method, two independent experts must confirm experimentally that the proposed method yields appreciably improved picture quality.  This methodology permits MPEG’s dozens of experts from the world’s top video coding laboratories to make tremendous improvements to the state-of-the-art over a remarkably short time”

The 2001 ISO/ITU Terms of Reference for AVC and h.264 [19] did set a 50% performance target as one of 9 requirements in Annex 1, but it separately required a royalty-free baseline for which the priority requirement was to be its demonstrably royalty free IPR.  And the overall aim was limited to “offer the best possible technical performance under the practical constraints of being implementable on various platforms and for various applications enabled by the relevant ITU-T Recommendations and ISO/IEC International Standards”

Similarly, the High-Performance Video Coding activity has wisely acknowledged that optimizing performance over some ranges may produce worse performance over others [20]:

“3 Requirements

3.1 Compression Performance

A substantially greater bitrate reduction over MPEG-4 AVC High Profile is required for the target application(s); at no point of the entire bitrate range shall HVC be worse than existing standard(s).”

In sum, while performance efficiency is undoubtedly an important requirement of any viable video codec standard, requirements must include and weigh trade-offs of multiple factors.  As described above, MPEG’s long-established methodology of first establishing a test model (in this case an Option-1/royalty-free test model) and then evaluating (Option-1) improvements to it, within the constraints of multiple application and platform requirements, is the appropriate requirements methodology.

References

[1]     “Resolutions of the 94th Meeting”, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC29 N11553, Guangzhou, CN, October 2010, http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc29/open/29view/29n11604c.htm:

“MPEG requests that companies comment on the following topics relating to Option-1 licensable video coding:

1. The relevance of pursuing such a standards activity within MPEG, particularly with respect to current market conditions and industry needs.

2. What are the specific video codec performance targets that may be required in order to secure the desired level of market adoption? As an example, current discussions related to an Option-1 codec have considered a 2x coding gain, in comparison to MPEG-1, as a minimum performance target.”

[2]     Leonardo Chiariglione, The missed award speech, May 2008, http://www.chiariglione.org/leonardo/publications/epo2008/index.asp:

“I believe MPEG should enlarge its portfolio of standards by offering some that are expected to be royalty free and typically less performing and with less functionality next to those that are state of the art, more performing and with more functionality.

… “[F]air – reasonable – non discriminatory” used to be meaningful words when standards were designed for the needs of one industry whose members generally shared the business model according to which the standard would be used.

… I fear that the virtuous circle … whereby the reward from innovation is used to create more innovation may be coming to an end.

… [T]he problem is not “how many cents, tens of cent or euros of licensing fee is fair and reasonable” but “how can licensing be fair and reasonable without specifying a business model”.”

[3]     IETF Internet Draft, Standards Track, “Overview: Real Time Protocols for Brower-based Applications”, H. Alvestrand (Google), November 11, 2010, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-protocols-00.

Section 5, Data formats, states:

“This document specifies a minimum baseline that will be supported by all implementations of this specification, and leaves further codecs to be included at the will of the implementor.

… In video, the VP8 codec [vp8] MUST be supported.” …

[4]     “HTML Video Codec Support in Chrome”, Mike Jazayeri, Google Product Manager, January 11, 2011, http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/html-video-codec-support-in-chrome.html

[5]     January 13, 2011, Re: [dispatch] Charter proposal: The activity hitherto known as “RTC-WEB at IETF”, http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg03119.html:

“My personal thinking is that a mandatory codec is reasonable for the profile document that I tried to create in draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-protocols, while it is not reasonable for the protocol document of draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-datagram. But if the IETF decides that it doesn’t want to address this issue … we (the people who want interoperability of RTC-Web applications) may have to start up a third effort in some forum that’s willing to define the profile needed for interoperability”

[6]     See, for example, W3C Patent Policy, http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/:

“In order to promote the widest adoption of Web standards, W3C seeks to issue Recommendations that can be implemented on a Royalty-Free (RF) basis. Subject to the conditions of this policy, W3C will not approve a Recommendation if it is aware that Essential Claims exist which are not available on Royalty-Free terms.”

[7]     For example, the Open Video Alliance, founded in 2009 by Mozilla, Kaltura, Participatory Culture Foundation, and Yale ISP, has issued five “Principles for an Open Video Ecosystem”, which clearly indicate that royalty-free open standards are the only acceptable approach for open web video standards:

“Open Standards for Video — Video standards (formats, codecs, metadata, etc.) should be open, interoperable, and royalty free”

http://openvideoalliance.org/wiki/index.php?title=Some_principles_for_open_video

[8]     Tim Berners-Lee, “Long Live the Web: A Call for Continued Open Standards and Neutrality”, Scientific American, November 22, 2010,  http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=long-live-the-web

[9]     W3C HTML5 FAQ, http://www.w3.org/html/wiki/FAQs, last modified 23 November 2010:

Does HTML5 provide for Royalty-Free video and audio codecs?

Question: Since no video codec and container format have been specified yet, CPs and service providers have to prepare multiple versions of same video contents for browsers supporting different codecs and container formats with HTML5. Therefore, it would be nice to specify (mandatorily) supported codec(s) and container format(s). When do you estimate this can be done? Or is it possible that this can be done at all?

The W3C HTML Working Group has not identified a Royalty-Free video codec or container format that would satisfy all parties. There are various requirements to consider, including the W3C Royalty-Free licensing commitments and various open source projects (Mozilla, Webkit). W3C is still highly interested in finding a solution in this space. At the moment, two video codecs seem to cover all major Web browsers.

See also Jeremy Kirk, “Browser vendor squabbles cause W3C to scrap codec requirement”, Infoworld, July 2, 2009 http://infoworld.com/d/developer-world/browser-vendor-squabbles-cause-w3c-scrap-codec-requirement-974

[10]   See MPEG 20th Year Anniversary Commemoration, Tokyo, November 8, 2008, http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/forum/forum2008MPEG20.html;       Hiroshi Yasuda, “MPEG Birth to Practical Use”, November 8, 2008, http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/forum/forum2008MPEG20/01MPEG20_Yasuda.pdf; Cliff Reader, “Video Coding IPR Issues”, http://www.avs.org.cn/avsdoc/2003-7-30/Cliff.pdf; Cliff Reader, “History of MPEG Video Compression–Ver. 4.0,” 99 pp., document marked Dec. 16, 2003.

[11]    Resolutions, the 92nd SC 29/WG 11 Meeting, 2010-04-19/23, Dresden, Germany, SC 29/WG 11 N 11241, http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc29/open/29view/29n11185c.htm:

“Given that there is a desire for using royalty free video coding technologies for some applications such as video distribution over the Internet, MPEG wishes to enquire of National Bodies about their willingness to commit to active participation (as defined by Section 6.2.1.4 of the JTC1 directives) in developing a Type-1 video coding standard.”

Resolutions, the 93rd SC 29/WG 11 Meeting, 2010-07-26/30, Geneva, Switzerland  [SC 29/WG 11 N 11356], http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc29/open/29view/29n11382c.htm:

“The Requirements group requests National Bodies and experts to provide contributions on the draft Option 1 Licensing Video Coding documents”

[12]   See Part 1, section 3 of “Guidelines for Implementation of the Common Patent Policy for ITU-T/ITU-R/ISO/IEC” (1 March 2007). The guidelines for the common patent policy encourage disclosure as early as possible by participants and third parties of any known patents or applications:

“[A]ny party participating in the work of the Organizations should, from the outset, draw their attention to any known patent or to any known pending patent application, either their own or of other organizations.

In this context, the words “from the outset” imply that such information should be disclosed as early as possible during the development of the Recommendation | Deliverable.

…  In addition to the above, any party not participating in Technical Bodies may draw  the attention of the Organizations to any known Patent, either their own and/or of any third-party.

[13]   http://tools.ietf.org/wg/codec/

[14]   See for example, “Think H.264 is Now Royalty-Free?  Think Again – and the ‘Open Source’ Defense is No Defense to MPEG-LA”, Peter Csathy, CEO Sorenson Media, Sept. 20, 2010,  http://blog.sorensonmedia.com/2010/09/think-h-264-is-now-royalty-free-think-again-and-the-open-source-defense-is-no-defense-to-mpeg-la/

It appears that many may  have been initially misinformed that MPEG-4 AVC was to become entirely royalty free, as highlighted by Peter Csathy, CEO of encoder vendor Sorenson Media:

“But, you say, MPEG LA recently announced that it will no longer charge royalties for the use of H.264. Yes, it’s true – MPEG LA recently bowed to mounting pressure from, and press surrounding, WebM and announced something that kind of sounds that way. But, I caution you to read the not-too-fine print. H.264 is royalty-free only in one limited case – for Internet video that is delivered free to end users. Read again: for (1) Internet delivery that is (2) delivered free to end users. In the words of MPEG LA’s own press release, “Products and services other than [those] continue to be royalty-bearing.”

This inspires speculation that there may be underlying and less charitable motives in play:

“MPEG LA, in fact, continues to make “noises” that even Google’s royalty free WebM gift to the world (which resulted from its acquisition of On2 and its VP8 video codec) infringes the rights of its patent holders.”

[15]   “Mozilla shrugs off ‘forever free’ H.264 codec license: Uh, will H.264 even be relevant in 4 years?”, Cade Metz, August 26, 2010, http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/mozilla-unmoved-by-royalty-free-h264/9499

[16]   “Opera still won’t support H.264 video”, Jan Vermeulen, October 1, 2010, http://mybroadband.co.za/news/internet/15547-Opera-still-wont-support-H264-video.html

[17]   See for example, MPEG2 Workplan, http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/meetings/london/london_press.htm:

“For the Video work, a disciplined methodology has been established to enable experimentation on various modules of the video encoding and decoding system to proceed in parallel.  A video test model has been established, and several key modules in its algorithmic block diagram are subject to improvement up until March 1993.  For a proposed alternative to be selected to replace the current method, two independent experts must confirm experimentally that the proposed method yields appreciably improved picture quality.  This methodology permits MPEG’s dozens of experts from the world’s top video coding laboratories to make tremendous improvements to the state-of-the-art over a remarkably short time.”

[18]   MPEG-1 rationale, requirements and workplan are publicly described in MPEG Press Release, 20th  Meeting, Nov. 6, 1992, http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/meetings/london/london_press.htm

[19]   “Terms of Reference for a Joint Project between ITU-T Q.6/SG16 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG11 for the Development of new Video Coding Recommendation and International Standard”, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11 N4400, December 2001,  http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc29/29w12911jvt.pdf

[20]   “Vision, Applications and Requirements for High-Performance Video Coding (HVC)”, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11/N11096, January 2010, Kyoto, JP, http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/working_documents/explorations/hvc/HVC_VR.zip

MPEG has issued a request for comments and a call for further evidence on a royalty-free video codec standard under consideration.

The request is contained in the  publicly available meeting resolutions of the October 2010 94th Meeting in Guangzhou, China.

The request follows responses received at the October Guanghzou meeting to the previous August call for evidence on Option-1 licensing (MPEG-speak for royalty-free) and input from the Chinese and US National Bodies.

In addition to information about target performance, the request cryptically asks:

The relevance of pursuing such a standards activity within MPEG, particularly with respect to current market conditions and industry needs.

Presumably this is a veiled reference to the announcement after the August MPEG meeting by the MPEG LA patent licensing administrator of new royalty terms on its AVC/H.264 (MPEG-4 Part 10) pool that has met Internet industry opposition.

————————————————————————————————————————————————

14.6 Option 1 Licensable Video Coding

14.6.1 The Requirements subgroup thanks the following organizations for their response to the Call for Evidence on Option-1 Video Coding Technology: Oracle, Peking University, Tsinghua University, Zhejiang University.

14.6.2 The Requirements subgroup thanks the CNNB and USNB for their input related to Option-1 video coding technology.

14.6.3 The Requirements subgroup recommends approval of the following documents:

No. Title TBP Available
Exploration – Option 1 Licensing Video Coding
11676 Call for Evidence on Option-1 Video Coding Technology N 10/10/15

14.6.4 Interested parties are encouraged to respond to N11676.

14.6.5 MPEG requests that companies comment on the following topics relating to Option-1 licensable video coding:

  1. The relevance of pursuing such a standards activity within MPEG, particularly with respect to current market conditions and industry needs.

  2. What are the specific video codec performance targets that may be required in order to secure the desired level of market adoption? As an example, current discussions related to an Option-1 codec have considered a 2x coding gain, in comparison to MPEG-1, as a minimum performance target.

————————————————————————————————————————————————

References

“Resolutions of the 94th Meeting”, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC29 N11553, Guanzhou, CN, October 2010, http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc29/open/29view/29n11604c.htm

“Think H.264 is Now Royalty-Free? Think Again – and the “Open Source” Defence is No Defense to MPEG-LA”, Peter Csathy, CEO Sorenson Media, Sept. 20, 2010, http://blog.sorensonmedia.com/2010/09/think-h-264-is-now-royalty-free-think-again-and-the-open-source-defense-is-no-defense-to-mpeg-la/

“Mozilla shrugs off ‘forever free’ H.264 codec license: Uh, will H.264 even be relevant in 4 years?’, Cade Metz, August 26, 2010, http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/mozilla-unmoved-by-royalty-free-h264/9499

“Opera still won’t support H.264 video”, Jan Vermeulen, October 1, 2010,  http://mybroadband.co.za/news/internet/15547-Opera-still-wont-support-H264-video.html

“Open Standards for Video — Video standards (formats, codecs, metadata, etc.) should be open, interoperable, and royalty free”, in “Some principles for open video”, Open Video Alliance, http://openvideoalliance.org/wiki/index.php?title=Some_principles_for_open_video

As readers of this blog know, I am a long-time proponent of royalty-free standardization as the best option for open Web media, preferable to informal, vendor-run open-sourcing of undocumented or unreviewed Intellectual Property Rights.

MPEG, an ISO working group (WG 11 of ISO/IEC JTC 1 / SC 29, to be precise), has been looking into royalty-free standardization and has issued a resolution soliciting interest in active participation by the relevant voting units (“National Bodies”).  Here is my manifesto on why a new dual-track standards activity in ISO could succeed where the 2001 h.264 royalty-free baseline failed.

So I forwarded the resolution to Steve Jobs (Apple has been a long-standing member of the MPEG committee), soliciting Apple’s support.

His response — “The problem is that it will have lower quality video…” — is in my view an accurate and reasonable conclusion and one shared by others, including the head of MPEG, who has said “I believe MPEG should enlarge its portfolio of standards by offering some that are expected to be royalty free and typically less performing and with less functionality next to those that are state of the art, more performing and with more functionality”.

Judge for yourself (no, no response to my second email):

——– Original Message ——–

Subject: Re: Please help develop a royalty-free ISO video standard
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 11:21:28 -0700
From: Rob Glidden <rob.glidden@xxx.xx>
To: Steve Jobs <sjobs@apple.com>

Steve:

Same quality at ~20% more bandwidth looks patent-safe today, so not a direct replacement for h.264.

Rather, a viable HTML5 solution, because World Wide Web Consortium, vendors, and community require codec to be royalty free AND standardized (not just open sourced).

Would Apple support ISO starting standardization process for HTML5-type uses?

Rob

On 6/1/2010 10:03 AM, Steve Jobs wrote:

The problem is that it will have lower quality video…

On Jun 1, 2010, at 9:33 AM, Rob Glidden wrote:
Steve:

I am writing to encourage Apple to actively participate in developing an ISO-approved royalty-free video coding standard.

The MPEG group has issued a resolution seeking active participation in developing a Type-1 (royalty-free) video coding standard:

“Given that there is a desire for using royalty free video coding technologies for some applications such as video distribution over the Internet, MPEG wishes to enquire of National Bodies about their willingness to commit to active participation (as defined by Section 6.2.1.4 of the JTC1 directives) in developing a Type-1 video coding standard. MPEG would appreciate if NBs provide the names of individual organisations that will commit resources”

Type-1 (royalty-free) licensing has been considered at recent MPEG meetings, and multiple National Bodies have expressed their support.

ISO procedure requires active participation by individual organizations to move the activity through the ISO standards process.

Please contact your ISO / SC 29 National Body and express your support for this important standards initiative.

Kind regards

Rob Glidden

References

[1] Resolutions, the 92nd SC 29/WG 11 Meeting, 2010-04-19/23, Dresden, Germany, SC 29/WG 11 N 11241, http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc29/open/29view/29n11185c.htm:

“Given that there is a desire for using royalty free video coding technologies for some applications such as video distribution over the Internet, MPEG wishes to enquire of National Bodies about their willingness to commit to active participation (as defined by Section 6.2.1.4 of the JTC1 directives) in developing a Type-1 video coding standard. MPEG would appreciate if NBs provide the names of individual organisations that will commit resources. MPEG will use the information gathered from the NB responses, particularly including the number of countries willing to actively participate, in order to decide at the Geneva meeting whether to request approval of a new Work Item Proposal. MPEG does not intend to reopen the issue, unless strong support of at least five national bodies is presented in the future.”

[2] ISO/IEC JTC 1 Directives, 5th Edition, Version 3.0 ISO/IEC JTC 1 N8557, http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc29/directives.pdf:

“9.3.1.1 Votes on NPs at the SC Level

… For the ballot to be successful at the SC level, the NP shall be supported by a majority of all P-members of the SC with at least five P-members committed to active participation.

6.2.1.4  Active participation for NPs includes involvement by NBs in more than one of the following:

– Attendance at meetings (see also 7.11);
– Contributing to the development of the WD;
– Performing substantial review on a CD and subsequent stages;
– Submitting detailed comment with ballots.”

[3] Meeting Report, the 91st SC 29/WG 11 Meeting, 2010-01-18/22, Kyoto, Japan, SC 29/WG 11 N 11077, http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc29/open/29view/29n11151c.htm:

“Royalty-free Codecs

In order to help with the discussion on royalty-free codecs, several National Bodies provided input as requested in N11066 Call for Comments on Possible Future activities on “Royalty-free” Standardization by MPEG. MPEG thanks with N11222 Responses to NB position statements on N1066. No clear conclusions could be drawn from the diverse responses. Furthermore, neither MPEG nor ISO can guarantee that a standard developed with the goal of being RAND or royalty-free will actually be RAND or royalty-free since the analysis of patents is outside of the scope and competence of ISO and MPEG.

MPEG issued document N11221 Possible future actions on standardization with Type 1 licensing where the legal issues are summarized and discussed. Type 1 licensing refers to option 1 of the joint patent declaration form, where an intellectual property holder can indicate that he will not charge for his IP. Laymen refer to this type of licensing as royalty-free.

However, MPEG believes that 20 years after its publication some technology will become royalty-free. Since parts of MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 were published in 2013 and 2014, candidates are a MPEG-2 Part 2 baseline profile carved out of MPEG-2 Part 2, MPEG-1 Part 3 Layer 2 baseline profile carved out of the MPEG-1 part 3 Layer 2, a MPEG-1 Part 3 Layer 3 baseline profile carved out of the MPEG-1 part 3 Layer 3, and a MPEG-2 Part 1 baseline profile carved out of the MPEG-2 part 1. These candidates would be compatible with existing equipment. Alternatively, MPEG may define a new set of standards which are believed to be RF provided such standards provide sufficient differentiation to be successful in the market place.“

[4] Meeting Report, the 90th SC 29/WG 11 Meeting, 2009-10-26/30, Xian, China, SC 29/WG 11 N 10876, http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc29/open/29view/29n10944c.htm:

“Royalty-free Codecs

The Chinese National Body encouraged MPEG to discuss the option of royalty-free codecs developed within MPEG (N11065 Responses to CNNB position statement on more friendly IPR policy). Especially small companies perceive licensing as cumbersome. Some royalty free standards have become successful in the market place.

MPEG might consider royalty-free codecs only as a supplement to its current standards development process. The preliminary results of the discussion are summarized in N11067 Summary of Issues and question from the 90th MPEG Meeting in connection with CNNB input document (M16903). In order to help with this discussion, MPEG requests National Bodies to provide input according to N11066 Call for Comments on Possible Future activities on “Royalty-free” Standardization by MPEG.”

Last night Google appears to have ended its silence about its willingness to standardize VP8 and WebM.

Cnet has updated a news article, “Mozilla trying to build VP8 into HTML5 video“, with Google’s response:

“We’re excited by the community’s response to the WebM project, and we support efforts to standardize the technology,” Google said in a statement.

Updated 10:28 p.m. PDT with Google comment.

Perhaps not the most ringing endorsement of standardization, but with the W3C’s Philippe Le Hegaret pointing out in the same article that “[t]o be seriously considered by the W3C HTML Working Group, the specification would need to go through a standards group”, it must have been increasingly difficult to remain silent (or hope to arm-twist Android partners into shouldering the patent risk).

Le Hegaret’s full statement points to potential responsible next steps on the standardization path:

“WebM/VP8 has the potential of providing a solution for the baseline video format of HTML5. To be seriously considered by the W3C HTML Working Group, the specification would need to go through a standards group and be developed under RF [royalty-free] licensing participation terms,” Philippe Le Hegaret, leader of Web video work at the W3C, said in a statement. “W3C remains interested in having a video format for HTML5 that is compatible with the W3C Royalty-Free Patent Policy.”

As I have argued, standardization in a royalty free process is the right path for open video.

UPDATE (Dept. of Beware of Non-Ringing Endorsements)

The Register’s Cade Metz followed up with Mozilla to clarify their advocacy of including VP8 in HTML5:

Though Cnet says that Mozilla is working to incorporate VP8 into HTML5, the organization tells us that John Lilly was “discussing the ideal scenario for VP8, not what Mozilla is currently doing.”

Last week I encouraged Google to rethink their VP8 open sourcing patent strategy and

“do the right open standards thing — join and contribute to responsible standards groups that are working to solve the royalty-free open standards need.”

The blog was picked up in Simon Phipps’ ComputerWorld blog, ZDNet, The Register, LWN and elsewhere.

At one level, this is a classic debate about what is “open” and what should be its hierarchy of values, priorities, and even basic definitions.

But is a “de facto” standard the same as an “open” standard?  No, at least not in the definition of open standards of OpenForum Europe, of which Google is a leading member.

But there is more to consider.  Google is including WebM in the next version of Android and rules Android device makers with a strong hand, necessarily playing favorites to steer the Android ship. So the message must be clear to Android device makers, suppliers, and wannabes to get on the WebM bandwagon.  And though Google is known as tough with patent trolls, Android device makers appear to have been either left to fend off patent attacks themselves, cut deals, or perhaps be quietly aided in patent litigation defense.

All commercially rational choices in the crazy, hard-nosed, twisted global mobile patent wars.  After all, look at where the patents came from in MPEG LA subsidiary MobileMedia’s law suits against Apple, HTC, and RIM (Nokia and Sony) and HTC’s counter suit against Apple (AMD through Saxon).

So is the net-net simply “until you take open source and put it in a product you can’t get sued,” so just watch the big boys force each other to take, or cave in to, patent risks in order to get to the head of the line for a promising platform?  And just hope in the meantime that royalty-free open standards for the Open Web escape cannon fodder, collateral damage, or sell-out status in the smart phone patent wars?

Unfortunately, patent hold-up gambits thrive on adopt-first-ask-questions-later scenarios of the sort Google seems to be arm-twisting for here.  Standards groups, regulators, and industry continue to grapple with this challenge.   See yesterday’s FTC/DOJ/PTO workshop and the EU’s draft guidelines for horizontal cooperation agreements that mention that “[t]here should be no bias in favour or against royalty free standards, depending on the relative benefits of the latter compared to other alternatives”.

But if vendors ignore open standards altogether, we all lose.

UPDATE

According to CNET, the W3C is taking the position that WebM/VP8 needs to go through a royalty free standards process:

“WebM/VP8 has the potential of providing a solution for the baseline video format of HTML5. To be seriously considered by the W3C HTML Working Group, the specification would need to go through a standards group and be developed under RF [royalty-free] licensing participation terms,” said Philippe Le Hegaret, leader of Web video work at the W3C, in a statement. “W3C remains interested in having a video format for HTML5 that is compatible with the W3C Royalty-Free Patent Policy.”

Much of the initial commentary on Google’s open sourcing of the VP8 codec it acquired in purchasing On2 has breathlessly, and uncritically, centered on the purported game-changing impact of the move.

But unfortunately, these commentaries miss an essential point that Google has studiously avoided mentioning the need to standardize royalty free codecs (not just release an open source snapshot).

But since forward motion is good simply because it is forward motion, shouldn’t one hesitate to look this gift horse in the mouth?

Unfortunately, in the case of multimedia codecs and technologies, ignoring open standards and instead presenting open sourcing as a fait accompli solution just works to the detriment of the entire open community.

The open Web needs royalty free standards (true, multi-stakeholder run standards, not unilateral actions) — that is its essential genius.  And without them, proprietary, vendor-controlled projects, even those that self-label as “open”, do little good and more likely more harm than good.  We all have the right to expect, and demand, that the Web’s current beneficiaries and leaders stay true to this fundamental open standards proposition, and not just forget it when convenient.  And this includes Google.

It is well known that many experts consider it now feasible to standardize serviceable royalty-free codecs.  MPEG (the standards group, not the unaffiliated license administrator MPEG LA) has even put out a resolution to that effect, and IETF has recently launched a royalty free codec activity in a similar spirit.  Google should get on board on this important trend, not undermine it with studied avoidance.  So far they have not.

It is important to understand that patent claims are typically handled under confidential non-disclosure agreements.  So unless there is a forcing function (litigation or standardization-required disclosure and review), there is no effective way to know who is actually claiming, and who is paying, what.  And there are documented cases of this going on for literally years.  So leaving VP8 code out in the open with nothing but a mutual non-assert license leaves the patent issue not only unaddressed, but up for capture by those with uncharitable agendas, and on their turf and time frame (let’s at least hope that’s sooner rather than later — but remember, forming patent pools rarely disclose all their patents up front).

Not a smart move, and hopefully one Google will realize the error of and correct quickly (here’s a useful cover story: we intended to smoke out patent holders all along, and we were going to get around to working with standards groups when we had the chance).  Contributing VP8 to a standards group with a strong patent disclosure policy would be a good corrective move; it would force lurking patent holders to come fully into the public. Not perfect, but a step forward.

Google’s open sourcing of VP8 is very different from Sun’s Open Media Stack codec work, and for that matter other responsible open video initiatives, which have based their work on identifiable IPR foundations, documented their patent strategy, and have been willing to work with bona-fide standards groups to address and resolve IPR issues.  When companies like Google ignore standards and go on their own in such important areas as video codec standards, they just undermine the very standards groups the open Web needs to thrive and grow.

We’d never accept a brand name company unilaterally declaring control of the next version of TCP/IP, HTML, or any other of a host of foundational Internet and Web standards simply by open sourcing something they’d bought.  Codecs will also be such a foundational component, a critically important one.  Just because the technology of codecs might be less familiar than some other technologies is no reason to abandon the royalty-free standardization philosophy that has built the Web.

Certainly not based on the complete feel-good-marketing non-explanation for this radical abandonment that Google has offered so far.   Because patent pool licensing is out of control?  No argument about that from me (or antitrust complainants Nero, VIZIO, and others).  Because Google “must have done its patent homework”?  OK, if so why not hand that homework in as a contribution to a standards group where it could get some expert scrutiny?

So I would encourage Google to do the right open standards thing — join and contribute to responsible standards groups that are working to solve the royalty-free open standards need.  Be a part of the royalty-free, open-standards solution, not part of the problem.

UPDATE

Tip of the hat to Xiph’s leader, Chris Montgomery, for good tongue-in-cheek humor:

“I, FOR ONE, WELCOME OUR NEW WEBM OVERLORDS“

Not to confuse: Xiph is wholeheartedly supporting WebM, but another interesting remark by Montgomery:

“But Monty isn’t worried about the MPEG-LA suing him or anyone at the WebM Project.

“The recent saber-rattling by Jobs felt more like a message to his own troops than
a warning shot to ours,” he says. “MPEG itself has always has an internal contingent
that has pushed hard for royalty-free baselines from MPEG, and the missives about
video codecs and patents were probably meant for them, not us.”

MPEG — Working Group 11 of  ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29 — has issued a resolution seeking active participation in developing a Type-1 (royalty-free) video coding standard.

“Given that there is a desire for using royalty free video coding technologies for some applications such as video distribution over the Internet, MPEG wishes to enquire of National Bodies about their willingness to commit to active participation (as defined by Section 6.2.1.4 of the JTC1 directives) in developing a Type-1 video coding standard.”

See below for publicly-released information from recent MPEG meetings on royalty-free standardization.

Organizations and experts interested in actively participating in a type-1 (royalty-free) standardization activity should contact their SC29/MPEG National Body or liaison.

—————-

Glossary:

SC: Subcommittee.  SC 29 is the ISO/IEC Subcommittee covering coding of Audio, Picture, Multimedia and Hypermedia Information (MPEG and JPEG).

WG: Working Group.  A subsidiary body of an SC, that undertakes work planned with the SC.

NB: National Body.  The members of a Subcommittee, one member per country.

P-Member: A participating, voting NB (as opposed to O-Member, a non-voting observer).  There are 25 P-Members of SC 29 (voting country members).

WD: Working Draft.  Preparatory-stage draft of specification.

CD: Committee Draft.  Committee-stage draft of specification.

RAND: Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory.  General term for patents licensed for royalties, rather than available for use on a royalty-free basis.

NP: New Work Item Proposal.

MPEG: Moving Pictures Experts Group.  WG 11 of SC 29, with charter for coding of moving pictures and audio.

Type 1:  Option 1 on the 2007 ITU/ISO/IEC Common Patent Policy Patent Statement and Licensing Form, stating “The Patent Holder is prepared to grant a free of charge license to an unrestricted  number of applicants on a worldwide, non-discriminatory basis and under other reasonable terms and conditions to make, use, and sell implementations of the above document.”

—————-

Resolutions, the 92nd SC 29/WG 11 Meeting, 2010-04-19/23, Dresden, Germany

SC 29/WG 11 N 11241

http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc29/open/29view/29n11185c.htm

Type-1 License Video Coding Standard

Given that there is a desire for using royalty free video coding technologies for some applications such as video distribution over the Internet, MPEG wishes to enquire of National Bodies about their willingness to commit to active participation (as defined by Section 6.2.1.4 of the JTC1 directives) in developing a Type-1 video coding standard. MPEG would appreciate if NBs provide the names of individual organisations that will commit resources. MPEG will use the information gathered from the NB responses, particularly including the number of countries willing to actively participate, in order to decide at the Geneva meeting whether to request approval of a new Work Item Proposal. MPEG does not intend to reopen the issue, unless strong support of at least five national bodies is presented in the future.

—————-
ISO/IEC JTC 1 Directives, 5th Edition, Version 3.0

ISO/IEC JTC 1 N8557

http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc29/directives.pdf

6.2.1 New Work Item Proposals (NP)

6.2.1.3 … In order to be approved, the proposal shall be supported by a majority of all P-members of JTC 1 with at least five P-members of the SC to which the project will be assigned committed to active participation. …

6.2.1.4  Active participation for NPs includes involvement by NBs in more than one of the following:

• Attendance at meetings (see also 7.11);
• Contributing to the development of the WD;
• Performing substantial review on a CD and subsequent stages;
• Submitting detailed comment with ballots.

—————-

Meeting Report, the 91st SC 29/WG 11 Meeting, 2010-01-18/22, Kyoto, Japan

SC 29/WG 11 N 11077

http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc29/open/29view/29n11151c.htm

Royalty-free Codecs

In order to help with the discussion on royalty-free codecs, several National Bodies provided input as requested in N11066 Call for Comments on Possible Future activities on “Royalty-free” Standardization by MPEG. MPEG thanks with N11222 Responses to NB position statements on N1066. No clear conclusions could be drawn from the diverse responses. Furthermore, neither MPEG nor ISO can guarantee that a standard developed with the goal of being RAND or royalty-free will actually be RAND or royalty-free since the analysis of patents is outside of the scope and competence of ISO and MPEG.

MPEG issued document N11221 Possible future actions on standardization with Type 1 licensing where the legal issues are summarized and discussed. Type 1 licensing refers to option 1 of the joint patent declaration form, where an intellectual property holder can indicate that he will not charge for his IP. Laymen refer to this type of licensing as royalty-free.

However, MPEG believes that 20 years after its publication some technology will become royalty-free. Since parts of MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 were published in 2013 and 2014, candidates are a MPEG-2 Part 2 baseline profile carved out of MPEG-2 Part 2, MPEG-1 Part 3 Layer 2 baseline profile carved out of the MPEG-1 part 3 Layer 2, a MPEG-1 Part 3 Layer 3 baseline profile carved out of the MPEG-1 part 3 Layer 3, and a MPEG-2 Part 1 baseline profile carved out of the MPEG-2 part 1. These candidates would be compatible with existing equipment. Alternatively, MPEG may define a new set of standards which are believed to be RF provided such standards provide sufficient differentiation to be successful in the market place.

—————-

Meeting Report, the 90th SC 29/WG 11 Meeting, 2009-10-26/30, Xian, China

SC 29/WG 11 N 10876

http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc29/open/29view/29n10944c.htm

Royalty-free Codecs

The Chinese National Body encouraged MPEG to discuss the option of royalty-free codecs developed within MPEG (N11065 Responses to CNNB position statement on more friendly IPR policy). Especially small companies perceive licensing as cumbersome. Some royalty free standards have become successful in the market place.

MPEG might consider royalty-free codecs only as a supplement to its current standards development process. The preliminary results of the discussion are summarized in N11067 Summary of Issues and question from the 90th MPEG Meeting in connection with CNNB input document (M16903). In order to help with this discussion, MPEG requests National Bodies to provide input according to N11066 Call for Comments on Possible Future activities on “Royalty-free” Standardization by MPEG.

—————-