CNet investigates whether H264's licensing is really a legal minefield. John Gruber, proponent of H264, concludes from the article, which uses the MPEG-LA and several legal experts as sources, that no, it is not a legal minefield. He's probably been reading a different article than I did, though, because even the legal experts have trouble understanding the licensing structure. Heck, even the MPEG-LA's head of licensing's language is remarkably unclear and broad. So, is it a legal minefield? Most certainly - this article does nothing to quell the worries.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2006-01-04
Member since:2006-11-14
i dont think he is an idiot, he knows what he is doing, he just keep on doing what gives him the best returns for his effort.
He caters to apple partly line because his audience want to constantly listen to that tune. He, like the rest of apple's extended PR arm, over amplify all that i good from apple and downplay, flat out ignore all that is less than "perfect" because thats what gives them exposure and most hits.
Apple is all for H.264. It is apple's extended PR arm's "duty" to tell us all how good the codec is and flat out ignore or spin all of its bad.
He looks like an idiot from all sides outside of the world he lives in and caters to.
Member since:
2009-06-20
Member since:
2006-07-26
Member since:2006-11-14
the "conclusion" link was supposed to link to the fourth entry from the top at http://daringfireball.net/
look at how simple his conclusion is, when spins cant be given,a complete silence or a simple answer is usually given.
Dont people see a disservice these "main stream" blogs give to their audience by ignoring license implications of using h.264?
Member since:
2006-07-26
Realistically, it's unlikely that a consumer who unwittingly plays a video clip from an unlicensed source is going to be pursued by MPEG-LA or by patent owners.
I love the way the sentence starts out...
Realistically, it's unlikely
... Well THANK GOD!... I can sleep at night now.
MPEG-LA are license trolls. Just as patent trolls hide in the dark while companies make millions, they're just waiting for the right time to strike.
Member since:
2005-06-28
Member since:2006-04-03
And this seems to be the way of the corporate world. As much crap as people give Apple at least when they sue someone over a patent infringement they do it up front and don't hang back waiting for the infringing party's idea to take off and make a lot of money. In other words they sue to enforce their patents which is what the law was designed for, not just to get a cash windfall, which is more than can be said for many who sue Apple...
Member since:2005-06-29
Right, because Android totally hasn't taken off yet, and HTC is totally not one of the major phone makers.
Member since:2005-07-06
I second that; if it was a matter of upholding patents then why did it take until now for Apple to do something? It is something I always question when the issue of patents come up and why apparently 'upholders of intellectual property' wait until an organisation makes a success of something before doing anything about it. What it seems to be is selective outrange when their dominance is challenged by a boisterous upstart.
Member since:
2008-07-07
the world wont end. Relax and read this piece from an actual tech lawyer. http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/04/know-your-rights-h-264-patent-li...
Member since:2006-01-12
No, no, don't believe MPEG-LA sponsored articles. Clearly all others are lying, tools of industry. OSNews has expertise and courage to show real truth.
-Rosetta Stone(d)
Member since:2005-06-28
The engadget article simply cited the MPEG-LA lawyers telling them that they won't do what their license says. While this is nice, the license says what it says, and Engadget agrees with that (read the editor's reply to my tweet that I linked). My article, which was based on the language of the license and simply explained what their license says.
Member since:2010-03-25
Member since:
2009-09-03
One sentence in that article just made me spew coffee all over my monitor. "So the real choice for most companies is to sign up with H.264 and the MPEG-LA in return for a baseline level of legal protection and broad compatibility with a codec that's been widely adopted in the market, or to go with Theora, save the money upfront and risk a patent lawsuit down the road while shipping a potentially inferior product."
Doesn't that sound mafia-like? Pay us for protection? LOL The author goes on to defend that sentence in the very next sentence. But it still jumped out at me.