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 422368
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.



Member since:
2007-02-17
How is it possible? If for ten years VP3 used technology for which someone had a valid prior patent, why didn't they sue On2?
True. However, if it was patentable, why didn't On2 include it in the patents that they DID get for VP3 (and which they subsequently gave Xiph.org permission to use in Theora). If a technology wasn't patentable by On2 at the time of release of VP3, then why would it be patentable for some other party later on?
If they are new techniques after VP3, then VP3 doesn't use them.