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 422286
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:
2010-05-02
There are a diskussion in EU about software patents. And a strong trend not to allow it. In the meantime in the US they are patenting and patenting and...but it has no legal effects in Europe!
Here in this thread are very good reasons for EU to reject software patenting.Which I hope will be the final decission.
If we compare mp3, then Fraunhofer in Germany has "The patent" and They tried to prohibit users from using the unlicensed versions with bitrate over 64 KBts.
Have anybody seen Fraunhofer sueing ordinary people for the use of mp3?
Jens