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 422334
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.



Member since:
2007-07-24
Yes, a usable version of H.261 came out in December 1990, so that counts as prior art for any US patent filed after December 1991. MASCAM, a subband audio coding system similar to MPEG-1 layer 2 audio came out in 1988. So if someone wanted, they could make a video and audio codec out of those, and probably be fairly safe. It would take more bandwidth than Ogg Theora and Vorbis, but would be better than Motion JPEG and PCM.