Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 31st Jan 2010 14:20 UTC, submitted by lemur2
Internet & Networking Despite the recent interest in adopting HTML5's video tag, there is still one major problem: there is no mandated standard video codec for the video tag. The two main contestants are the proprietary and patended h264, and the open and free Theora. In a comment on an LWN.net article about this problematic situation, LWN reader Trelane posted an email exchange he had with MPEG-LA, which should further cement Theora as the obvious choice.
Thread beginning with comment 407315
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: costs
by lemur2 on Mon 1st Feb 2010 22:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: costs"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

Thom, maybe you haven't noticed, but usually the patent trolls emerge when a technology is already in wide use and popular.


In order for there to be a patent troll against Theora, there has to be a patent that was awarded before the patents for VP3 were awarded to On2. In addition, the USPTO has to have made a mistake, and awarded that earlier patent, and also On2's patent(s) for VP3, so that they covered the same methods for video compression.

That is highly unlikely.

If a patent troll turns up with a patent that was awarded after the patent(s) for VP3 ... big deal. The patent(s) for VP3, being earlier, trump any later ones covering the same video compression methods.

Edited 2010-02-01 22:38 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: costs
by _LH_ on Tue 2nd Feb 2010 07:10 in reply to "RE[3]: costs"
_LH_ Member since:
2005-07-20

That would only apply if On2's patents covered each and every part of the codec. It is far more likely that On2's patents cover somer major parts of the codec but each and every algorithm etc used in it.

The fact that On2 has some patents absolutely does not guarantee that there couldn't be any older patents covering some parts of the codec.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: costs
by lemur2 on Tue 2nd Feb 2010 09:50 in reply to "RE[4]: costs"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

That would only apply if On2's patents covered each and every part of the codec. It is far more likely that On2's patents cover somer major parts of the codec but each and every algorithm etc used in it.

The fact that On2 has some patents absolutely does not guarantee that there couldn't be any older patents covering some parts of the codec.


If there were older valid patents, prior to circa 1997, belonging to someone else other than On2, which both On2 and the USPTO missed entirely, and which are still valid to this very day, covering some aspect of video compression technology as used in VP3, for which in all this time the owner has never made any demands at all, I would be utterly astounded.

Considering that VP3 patents were seen as obsolete, and handed over to open source in late 2001, that would be the timeframe. Perhaps earlier.

Highly unlikely. Extremely unlikely.

Edited 2010-02-02 09:54 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2