Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 20th May 2010 23:22 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 425903
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.
RE[6]: Patents not quality
by lemur2 on Fri 21st May 2010 13:00
in reply to "RE[5]: Patents not quality"
How exactly would creating a royalty-free, re-implementable standard from VC-1 have locked people into Windows?
Official Microsoft PR spin (translated): Microsoft alone can supply VC1 with all the required permissions (licenses), unfortunately <sarcasm>because of that nasty patent troll that attacked VC1</sarcasm>, and unfortunately the trolls insist it must be closed with no open implementation. Because it is mostly Microsoft IP, with a bit of IP owned by that nasty troll, the combination is only legally available from Microsoft. This is clearly not Microsoft's fault. And oh, BTW, Microsoft offers it to you only if you have one of these Microsoft-endorsed platforms to run it on ... <list of platforms that excludes whatever Microsoft feels like excluding>.
Edited 2010-05-21 13:03 UTC




Member since:
2010-03-25
How exactly would creating a royalty-free, re-implementable standard from VC-1 have locked people into Windows?
They might have had a head start since they already had an implementation, but assuming it wasn't a joke of a standard (like their OOXML) then it would have been easily re-implementable by others. And the best version would have likely been an open source rewrite, just like it is for H.264 and x264, and probably will be the case for VP8 and some as yet unlaunched project.