Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sat 1st May 2010 22:17 UTC

UPDATE: Engadget just wrote a reply to this article. The article says that you don't need an extra license to shoot commercial video with h.264 cameras, but I wonder why the license says otherwise, and Engadget's "quotes" of user/filmmaker indemnification by MPEG-LA are anonymous...
UPDATE 2: Engadget's editor replied to me. So according to him, the quotes are not anonymous, but organization-wide on purpose. If that's the case, I guess this concludes that. And I can take them on their word from now on.
UPDATE 3: And regarding royalties (as opposed to just licensing), one more reply by Engadget's editor.
Thread beginning with comment 422187
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.
Member since:
2005-08-28
Yeah, but if Monty from Xiph is correct in his analysis of Steve Jobs' email, MPEG-LA is claiming that ALL video codecs infringe on their patents, Ogg/Theora included.
The issue then becomes what to do about a consortium you cannot legally compete with (as Monty says), but that's a case for the courts provided you can make them understand and care. Ultimately, I suspect that'd be Patentmageddon, which MPEG-LA hopefully wouldn't survive, and thus they would never actually instigate.
Edited 2010-05-02 10:33 UTC