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 422405
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.



Member since:
2010-05-03
Eugenia, this is a very interesting article, but what I don't understand is, x264 has been around for years and it keeps going strong, in fact it's the best h.264 encoder. How come they haven't been sued or at least send a cease and desist letter by the MPEG LA lawyers?