Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 18th Mar 2010 00:10 UTC
Multimedia, AV This one was accidentally deleted from the submission queue when it was first submitted some time ago, so I decided to keep it around for a slow news day (such as this one - dear lord, it's quiet). FFmpeg developer Mans penned down a number of crucial problems with the Ogg container format.
Thread beginning with comment 414014
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by elanthis on Thu 18th Mar 2010 05:24 UTC
Member since:

Any of the people here discussing the container formats actually read the damn article? Not just skim it, but read it? Almost all of the questions people above have asked were addressed in the article, and a few things people said he didn't cover he most certainly did.

So far as Matroska, he did mention it, but he has not posted any detailed analysis of the format yet either. He indicated it's better, but not whether it's better than any other particular container format. He only mentioned it in relation to it also being an free/open standard and hence invalidates the claim that we "need OGG because it's the only patent-free container format." (Matroska might be covered by an unknown patent, but then so might OGG; nobody's brought up one for either yet, though.)

Reply Score: 3

RE: seriously?
by lemur2 on Thu 18th Mar 2010 06:30 in reply to "seriously?"
lemur2 Member since:

(Matroska might be covered by an unknown patent, but then so might OGG; nobody's brought up one for either yet, though.)

Container formats for compressed data are unlikely to be covered by a patent as there is nothing all that innovative about them really, there is copious prior art, including but not limited to the zip format.

Patents are more likely to cover codecs.

The Theora codec (which Ogg or matroska might contain) is itself patented, there is nothing "unknown" about that. Theora is based on On2's VP3 codec. have obtained the required permission to develop Theora, and to distribute it royalty-free as open source software.

This makes it unlikely that there are any other "unkown" patents that apply to Theora out there. Firstly, On2 should not have been able to patent VP3 if there was a valid earlier patent that covered the same technology, and secondly, any later patent on the same technology would be trumped by On2's older patent.

Finally, the companies that are trying so hard to promote h264 and FUD against Theora have repeatedly mentioned this possibility about imaginary "unkown" patents that might be out there that might apply to Theora. This is telegraphing their wish that there was such a claim, clearly the h264 companies would support such a claim. Proabably with hard cash up front, just so there would actually be a patent claim against Theora.

As the parent post notes: nobody's brought up one yet, though.

This is a very strong indication that nobody holds such a patent, just as should be the case if the USPTO were doing their job when they awarded the patents for VP3 to On2.

Edited 2010-03-18 06:35 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1