Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 31st Jan 2010 14:20 UTC, submitted by lemur2
Permalink for comment 407388
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 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-20
However, a few years before 2001, the methods of compression of digital video were all new. If there are earlier patents that made the same claims as to the method of compression as were made with On2's patent application for VP3, then the USPTO would not have granted the patent to On2.
I strongly disagree. All modern video codecs trace their technology back to the eighties. The fact that people didn't download Divx movies before circa 2001 doesn't mean that the technology wasn't there.
The first somewhat popular video coding standard is H.261 from year 1990. It feature among others:
* blocks
* DCT
* quantized transform
* zig-zag scanning
* motion vectors
* entropy coding
All of these are included in Theora. I just checked from the Theora spec.
Nothing prevents other companies holding some obscure implementation patents on these technologies and even if On2 had done their best to check that they don't violate anybody's patents, that does not guarantee that there are no patents.
You seem to constantly imply that there exists an On2 patent which covers the VP3 as a whole. That doesn't hold. On2 has just guaranteed that if they have some patents related to VP3, then they won't use those against Theora.