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 556782
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[12]: Big picture...
by galvanash on Wed 27th Mar 2013 02:33 UTC in reply to "RE[11]: Big picture..."
Member since:

Way to misunderstand. The whole point of is that h264 is available to most people and those who don't want to out of bullshit reasons will only do so when they really need to.

Windows is available to most people and those who don't want to run it out of bullshit reasons will only do so when they really need to.

That sound fair to you? Same thing.

If I said I should support IE6 users as well I am sure your tone would change. This is what you are asking me to do outside of users of Windows, OSX, iOS and Android.

Again with the implication that VP8 is old and/or broken... Why are you equating supporting an 11 year old deprecated piece of software to supporting a well maintained and actively supported video codec? Its not at all the same thing and you know it.

Besides... Who is asking YOU to do anything at all? I don't care what video codec you use - use whatever you want. I just want(ed) the standard for internet video to be universally accessible, and that means NO ROYALTIES. Didn't get my way unfortunately, so we have the cluster f*ck that is the video tag now.

You don't have to like VP8 and you don't have to use VP8, all I want is for you to understand why some people (like me) want it (or something equally as liberal) to exist - it opens up all kinds of opportunities for innovation that are simply not possible when you have the MPEGLA tax collector looming on the other side of success...

It is bullshit, and unrealistic. If WebM is dominate over flash/h264 then I would agree. It isn't.

Why is it unrealistic to ask all browsers to incorporate a baseline codec? I totally don't get this argument. It is certainly not because of patent concerns, the only holdouts hold the patents everyone is concerned about. What is Microsoft and Apple going to do? Sue themselves?

Quite easy don't use a codec that infringes on their patents. Oh there probably isn't any.

If VP8 infringes on someone's patent and they are willing to go to court over it we will all see how that turns out. Right now it is a moot point. Id rather hold out hope that it will survive patent litigation than simply give up and use h.264.

Im sorry, but I refuse to use a product with a licensing regime modeled after street corner drug dealing...

Only after 100000 views and over 12 minutes long. Sorry if you are able to provide that sort of bandwidth your $2500 is not spent on the f--king MPEG-LA license.

Your understanding of the math for this is seriously f*cked up.

Streaming 2.5TB of data (25MB (roughly the size of a 12 min video) * 100,000) over a period of a month costs about $300 using amazon S3... That is $3,600 a year.

So month one is free for your MPEGLA license. In month 2 you would have to pay $2,000 US to MPEGLA (2 cents per stream). That ends up being $22,000 for the entire year.

bandwidth is BY FAR cheaper than MPEGLA licensing...

FFS. This is ridiculous.

Yes it is.


In the case of Internet Broadcast AVC Video (AVC Video that is delivered via the Worldwide Internet to an End User for which the End User does not pay remuneration for the right to receive or view, i.e., neither Title-by-Title nor Subscription), there will be no royalty for the life of the License.

Didn't I already concede streaming free videos is free? Why are you bringing it up again? I just don't understand why otherwise intelligent people are so willing to accept this street-corner-crack-1st-hit-is-free licensing model like it is the greatest thing ever...

If a said website is getting more than half a million views it isn't going to be independent except for the in extraordinary circumstances

You are seriously sheltered or something. 500,000 views is nothing...

I don't care because it doesn't affect me or the work that I am doing. It doesn't affect most of the end-users I support. It called pragmatism ... look it the f--k up and tell me why then I am wrong for having this point of view.

Im pragmatic too. I don't see how VP8's existence in any way affects you - so why do you care? It's non-existence on the other hand effects me greatly, so why are you so hell bent on arguing against its existence and industry support?

Also why shouldn't the MPEG-LA be re-reimbursed for a codec that is used so much and works so well?

I never said they shouldn't. I am not opposed to h.264, it is a great codec. Some people just want an option that doesn't cost money - the web NEEDS an option that doesn't cost money, and the only reason such an option doesn't exist universally is because of a protectionism racket which intentionally squashes any attempt to create an alternative...

Reply Parent Score: 2