Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 25th Mar 2013 21:09 UTC
Late last week, Nokia dropped what many consider to be a bomb on the WebM project: a list of patents that VP8 supposedly infringes in the form of an IETF IPR declaration. The list has made the rounds around the web, often reported as proof that VP8 infringes upon Nokia's patents. All this stuff rang a bell. Haven't we been here before? Yup, we have, with another open source codec called Opus. Qualcomm and Huawei made the same claims as Nokia did, but they turned out to be complete bogus. As it turns out, this is standard practice in the dirty business of the patent licensing industry.
Permalink for comment 556688
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:
2005-06-29
Which raises the question why you oppose the adoption of VP8/9. If VP8/9 gets declared mandatory-to-implement (like Opus), Apple will have no choice but to implement it or become non-compliant with web standards. This would mean VP8/9 becomes a baseline - requiring only one, single encode.
Why do you oppose this?
Rome wasn't built in a day, and H.264 is not an option in any way, shape, or form because it's proprietary and thus incompatible with the open web. VP8/9 is the only viable option to solve this issue, whether you like it or not.