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.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Thank you for elaborating. I think for source code, it might be the case that the source code is not considered infringement, just the compiled version running. I could be wrong though. For example the ISO has freely downloadable implementations of MPEG-2.
I am guessing that Youtube, Vimeo, Hulu and Facebook had their lawyers talk to MPEG-LA's lawyers and banged out an agreement that let them use whatever encoding software they choose.
I think no software patents would be vastly preferable to the situation that we have today. Crosses fingers and hopes for a good ruling in Bilski.




Member since:
2010-03-28
Ok, I'll elaborate on it for a bit.
Yes, to be safe from litigation, whenever you do ANYTHING with H.264, in theory you need to make a license agreement with MPEG LA.
But in the case of encoders, it's more a problem of the Seller of the encoders. (Selling also includes providing a free download.)
I'd think the fact Youtube, Vimeo, Hulu and Facebook are using x264 says something.
Did I mention I hate software patents and they should just die.