Linked by Kroc Camen on Tue 24th Feb 2009 14:55 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 350537
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: What good is HTML5 audio/video support...
by lemur2 on Wed 25th Feb 2009 02:49
in reply to "RE[5]: What good is HTML5 audio/video support..."
"Agreed. Totally.
Patents, inter-operability and access-for-all are concepts that don't really mix at all well. Open unencumbered standards are far, far better for everybody.
Vorbis for music, speex for speech, and FLAC when quality is required but compression is not, and Theora for "videolets" and Dirac for higher-quality video would seem to be the best options for avoiding all kinds of patent issues.
Patents, inter-operability and access-for-all are concepts that don't really mix at all well. Open unencumbered standards are far, far better for everybody.
Vorbis for music, speex for speech, and FLAC when quality is required but compression is not, and Theora for "videolets" and Dirac for higher-quality video would seem to be the best options for avoiding all kinds of patent issues.
What I'd like to see is a more sane model. If you're not making a buck off it then why should one have to pay a royalty? I mean, why shouldn't Fedora ship with all the patented codecs given that it (not Red Hat) makes no money off it; same goes for other community based distributions and operating systems. Now, if the companies like Red Hat wish to ship and support it (and thus make money off it through support contracts) - then its a different matter entirely.
Going back to the browser, given that the browser is free, why shouldn't they be be allowed to include support for MPEG4/h264? they're making no profit off it, thus, it isn't as though there is any 'profit' that the said organisation needs to 'share' with the patent holders for the use of intellectual property to create a product.
Maybe I'm just strange but the whole patent issue doesn't make any sense to begin with in the first place. "
I think you are spot on ... I think it is the patent issue that is in the strange place.
In the EU one supposedly cannot get any patent on pure mathematics ... an idea needs to be a "machine" in order to have patent protection.
My question is this then ... how can a codec possibly be patentable? A codec is about as close to pure mathematics as one can get. It is nothing but a transformation of one set of numbers into another set.
Meanwhile, the push against "proprieatry content delivery software/systems on the internet" has just got a little more interesting, especially in the EU, IMO.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/02/google-joins-the-eu...




Member since:
2005-07-06
There are solutions out there, too bad the concern by organisations is short term profit at the expense of long term innovation and new business opportunities.
Agreed. Totally.
Patents, inter-operability and access-for-all are concepts that don't really mix at all well. Open unencumbered standards are far, far better for everybody.
Vorbis for music, speex for speech, and FLAC when quality is required but compression is not, and Theora for "videolets" and Dirac for higher-quality video would seem to be the best options for avoiding all kinds of patent issues.
What I'd like to see is a more sane model. If you're not making a buck off it then why should one have to pay a royalty? I mean, why shouldn't Fedora ship with all the patented codecs given that it (not Red Hat) makes no money off it; same goes for other community based distributions and operating systems. Now, if the companies like Red Hat wish to ship and support it (and thus make money off it through support contracts) - then its a different matter entirely.
Going back to the browser, given that the browser is free, why shouldn't they be be allowed to include support for MPEG4/h264? they're making no profit off it, thus, it isn't as though there is any 'profit' that the said organisation needs to 'share' with the patent holders for the use of intellectual property to create a product.
Maybe I'm just strange but the whole patent issue doesn't make any sense to begin with in the first place.