Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 4th May 2010 16:34 UTC
Legal CNet investigates whether H264's licensing is really a legal minefield. John Gruber, proponent of H264, concludes from the article, which uses the MPEG-LA and several legal experts as sources, that no, it is not a legal minefield. He's probably been reading a different article than I did, though, because even the legal experts have trouble understanding the licensing structure. Heck, even the MPEG-LA's head of licensing's language is remarkably unclear and broad. So, is it a legal minefield? Most certainly - this article does nothing to quell the worries.
Permalink for comment 422806
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Engadget article
by Drunkula on Wed 5th May 2010 13:24 UTC
Drunkula
Member since:
2009-09-03

One sentence in that article just made me spew coffee all over my monitor. "So the real choice for most companies is to sign up with H.264 and the MPEG-LA in return for a baseline level of legal protection and broad compatibility with a codec that's been widely adopted in the market, or to go with Theora, save the money upfront and risk a patent lawsuit down the road while shipping a potentially inferior product."

Doesn't that sound mafia-like? Pay us for protection? LOL The author goes on to defend that sentence in the very next sentence. But it still jumped out at me.

Reply Score: 1