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 422227
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.



Member since:
2010-05-02
Does everyone really think that this many major corporations would risk their future income by adopting a product that is so encumbered? We are not just talking about tech companies, but we are including the likes of Sony, Kodak, Fox, etc. It could be a case of the blind following the blind, but I have to assume that some of these companies are satisfied that they and their customers are not in danger. If there is nothing else that corporations are good at, it is risk management.
More that likely, if this ever did become an issue you would have enough of a patent portfolio on the other side to squelch the issue. You could argue that some early adopters did not understand the extent of the issue. With Microsoft coming this late to the game, though, you have to imagine that they have done their homework. I just one of these companies would step up and offer indemnification.