Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 24th Jan 2010 17:59 UTC
Mozilla & Gecko clones This week, both YouTube and Vimeo opened up beta offerings using HTML5 video instead of Flash to bring video content to users. Both of them chose to use the h264 codec, which meant that only Safari and Chrome can play these videos, since firefox doesn't license the h264 codec. Mike Shaver, Mozilla's vice president of engineering, explained on his blog why Mozilla doesn't license the h264 codec.
Thread beginning with comment 405717
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
In many countries?
by lezard on Sun 24th Jan 2010 18:30 UTC
lezard
Member since:
2005-10-11

"In many countries, it is a patented technology"
Many countries? I only count one (USA), but it might be due to my ignorance.

Edited 2010-01-24 18:30 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: In many countries?
by KAMiKAZOW on Mon 25th Jan 2010 00:47 in reply to "In many countries?"
KAMiKAZOW Member since:
2005-07-06

"In many countries, it is a patented technology"
Many countries? I only count one (USA), but it might be due to my ignorance.


Well, maybe there are patents around AVC decoding in hardware (and hardware patents are common around the world), but unless Mozilla enters the hardware business and starts to manufacture video en-/decoding chips, those patents are of no interest to them.

BTW, while On2 agreed not to enforce any VP3 patents when they gave the source code to Xiph to create Theora, hardware patents are a different issue. Maybe that's the reason we've yet to see any Theora decoding chips.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: In many countries?
by lemur2 on Mon 25th Jan 2010 06:51 in reply to "In many countries?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"In many countries, it is a patented technology"
Many countries? I only count one (USA), but it might be due to my ignorance.


The previous government of my country, Australia, was foolish enough to sign a patent agreement with the US, so that US patents on h264 would be applicable here in Australia.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: In many countries?
by boldingd on Mon 25th Jan 2010 17:21 in reply to "RE: In many countries?"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Urgh, that's true for more than just Australia, isn't it? Isn't there a free-trade agreement that calls for recognition in all signators of a patent valid in any signator? Or am I making that up?

Edit: I think I might be thinking of the combination of the Berne convention, which calls for international recognition of copyright, and 1996 WIPO copyright treaty, which explicitly allows for the copyrightability of software under the Berne convention. Or I could be completely wrong, and making an idiot of myself. I'm not sure!

Edited 2010-01-25 17:30 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: In many countries?
by Carewolf on Mon 25th Jan 2010 15:57 in reply to "In many countries?"
Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

Just because software patents are not officially allowed, does not mean the patent offices around the world doesn't grand them, or the courts occasionally upholds them. Remember MP3 got successfully patented in most of Europe. I don't know the situation for H.264, but I find it plausible they have found some loop-holes to get patents almost everywhere.

Edited 2010-01-25 15:59 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2