Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 20th May 2010 22:19 UTC
Multimedia, AV "Prior to Google's announcement of its open sourcing the VP8 video codec, a spokesperson for MPEG LA - the licensing agent that manages the patent portfolio for multimedia technologies relating to the H.264 codec, among others - agreed to answer ten questions submitted to the agency in advance. Those questions regard how it licenses the codec that Microsoft and Apple consider the best solution for HTML 5, the next markup language for the Web." Ten questions, ten answers, and the H264 licensing and royalties mess has managed to become even less clear. Let's compare this to WebM: "You can do whatever you want with the WebM code without owing money to anybody." Now you again, MPEG-LA.
Thread beginning with comment 425896
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by Lazarus
by MissTJones on Fri 21st May 2010 12:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Lazarus"
Member since:

Well the "this might change" bit certainly makes things unclear, but at last we're clear that it's not clear, it's a known unknown, you might say.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Lazarus
by B. Janssen on Sat 22nd May 2010 10:12 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Lazarus"
B. Janssen Member since:

Thanks, we must attach different meanings to "unclear" then.

Nothing the MPEG-LA can write into their license will allow them to retroactively charge anybody. Therefore the terms of use today are perfectly clear. Obviously the MPEG-LA (if it still exists) can change the terms of use in 2015, or really anytime they like, but this is also perfectly clear.

I agree that the future changes to the license will probably for the worse if h264 gains a stranglehold on content encoding, but angsting about the future actions of the MPEG-LA is not making anything they said unclear. It's just another reason to not use h264.

Edited 2010-05-22 10:13 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2