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 422584
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:
2009-11-10
Your assumption that theora is unfit revolves around breaking patents. But if a big company with its own patents would throw its weight behind it (or VP8) it could just counter-sue the MPEG alliance.
And that might be another reason why Google bought On2: The MPEG alliance won’t dare sue them when in the same instance they would also lose their right to license h.264 (which surely breaks some On2 patents, too).