Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 25th Mar 2013 21:09 UTC
Legal 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 556751
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: Big picture...
by galvanash on Tue 26th Mar 2013 19:34 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Big picture..."
galvanash
Member since:
2006-01-25

Actually it proves then that VP8 is still a bit crap for video conferencing.


All it proves is that Google, like everyone else that does video conferencing, is using h.263/h.264/SVC - because that is the industry standard for video conferencing... Not the "defacto" standard, the ITU standard... At least at this point in time.

H264 is better, whatever way you shake it whether it is perceivable or not. Most of the web is already using it.


But there is no standard for web video. And the reason there is no standard is because of h.264 patent holders killing it in committee. We would all be using Theora now as a baseline if that were not the case.

The fact that most of the web is using it doesn't do any good for people that need a royalty free codec. I personally could not care less about what everyone else is using - I care about what everyone can use - and not everyone can use h.264.

You can make all the arguments you want about how h.264 is better. I personally think Theora (as bad as it is) is better than h.264 - because I don't have to pay anyone to use it...

Reply Parent Score: 3