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 422092
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.



Member since:
2005-07-08
I liked the thought provoking article...much in the same way I liked watching "The Day After".
Everyone should know how a nuclear patent war will end the world so that it will never happen.
That said, if MPEG LA tried to assert these powers, they would quickly find themselves stripped of those powers (whether via member self interests, DoJ, court ruling, or consumer backlash, etc).
It certainly isn't in Apple's or Microsoft's interests to creatively stifle their user base, for example.