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.
Oh yes, I'm perfectly aware of that. As I said in another reply somewhere in these comments, the pricks that want these so much have managed to prevent the EU Parliament from voting the soft' patents into oblivion.
For now, we must be happy they couldn't convince technologically illiterate Mps to make them into law.
As a side note, the Parliament has already shot down any attempt for such patent to crammed down our throats through ACTA (since the extent of what ACTA can do was severely limited in a law that was passed a couple of months ago).
Well, that's the way I have understood it anyway; but I must say I didn't really have the time to really get into that in the last few months, so any correction is welcome.




Member since:
2006-07-26
"Safe, for now" is not the same as "Safe". Its rather uncertain (the U in FUD).