Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 4th May 2010 16:34 UTC
Legal CNet investigates whether H264's licensing is really a legal minefield. John Gruber, proponent of H264, concludes from the article, which uses the MPEG-LA and several legal experts as sources, that no, it is not a legal minefield. He's probably been reading a different article than I did, though, because even the legal experts have trouble understanding the licensing structure. Heck, even the MPEG-LA's head of licensing's language is remarkably unclear and broad. So, is it a legal minefield? Most certainly - this article does nothing to quell the worries.
Thread beginning with comment 422761
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
calm down and stop the fud
by jokkel on Wed 5th May 2010 06:20 UTC
Member since:

the world wont end. Relax and read this piece from an actual tech lawyer.

Reply Score: 2

RE: calm down and stop the fud
by Karitku on Wed 5th May 2010 06:52 in reply to "calm down and stop the fud"
Karitku Member since:

the world wont end. Relax and read this piece from an actual tech lawyer.

No, no, don't believe MPEG-LA sponsored articles. Clearly all others are lying, tools of industry. OSNews has expertise and courage to show real truth.
-Rosetta Stone(d)

Reply Parent Score: 2

Eugenia Member since:

The engadget article simply cited the MPEG-LA lawyers telling them that they won't do what their license says. While this is nice, the license says what it says, and Engadget agrees with that (read the editor's reply to my tweet that I linked). My article, which was based on the language of the license and simply explained what their license says.

Reply Parent Score: 1

MissTJones Member since:

Amusingly this lawyer's advice is "speak to a lawyer". Glad we got that sorted out.

Edited 2010-05-05 09:35 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2