Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sat 1st May 2010 22:17 UTC
UPDATE: Engadget just wrote a reply to this article. The article says that you don't need an extra license to shoot commercial video with h.264 cameras, but I wonder why the license says otherwise, and Engadget's "quotes" of user/filmmaker indemnification by MPEG-LA are anonymous...
UPDATE 2: Engadget's editor replied to me. So according to him, the quotes are not anonymous, but organization-wide on purpose. If that's the case, I guess this concludes that. And I can take them on their word from now on.
UPDATE 3: And regarding royalties (as opposed to just licensing), one more reply by Engadget's editor.
Permalink for comment 422084
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.



Member since:
2005-11-14
Congratulations for your article, Eugenia. I agree entirely with your ideas.
I think that the root of the problem is that today in USA companies are patenting signal-processing algorithms ! It is like patenting mathematics !
Processing an unidimensional signal like sound or bidimensional signal like an image or a tridimensional signal like a video is a mathematical algorithm.
Imagine if in the past companies had patented the Fourier Transform
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform
and we had to pay royalties to use it. We simply would not have many communication and electronic products and services.