Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 2nd May 2012 11:46 UTC
Legal "Motorola Mobility has been granted an injunction against the distribution of key Microsoft products in Germany. The sales ban covers the Xbox 360 games console, Windows 7 system software, Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player. It follows a ruling that Microsoft had infringed two patents necessary to offer H.264 video coding and playback." But... But... The MPEG-LA, Apple, and Microsoft have been lying to us all this time about the safety of using H264 over WebM, with their supporters blindly parroting the party line? This surprises me greatly and deeply, and I dare say I have not seen this coming at all. Not at all. No sir. Not at all.
Thread beginning with comment 516765
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Wed 2nd May 2012 17:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

I don't really care about numbers. Microsoft can claim their racket rates are "reasonable" (comparing to others), but in my perspective racket in unacceptable altogether. When some thugs come and say they offer "protection" for less money than other thugs (and thus they are "fair") - they are still thugs, isn't it?

Regarding H.264, you can check these articles:

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2010/05/03/follow-up-on-html5-vi...

H.264 also provides the best certainty and clarity with respect to legal rights from the many companies that have patents in this area.


See also http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2011/02/02/html5-and-web-video-q... .

The basis underlying idea is - H.264 is established, protected and not risky, while WebM is too risky too adopt. Classical FUD which is nicely busted with this recent development.

Edited 2012-05-02 17:17 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by MollyC on Wed 2nd May 2012 18:00 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Thanks for the citation.

I don't see where the "lie" is. They didn't know that Motorola Mobility (backed by Google) would start charging 1.2 million times what the average H.264 patent goes for. (Isn't it convenient that the entity that controls H.264's competing codec has one of its puppets poisoning the well for H.264 by demanding 1.2 million times what the average H.264 patent goes for? Seems a good way to turn people off of H.264 and make way for WebM to rule everything (which fits Thom's article to a tee), and Google can keep its hands clean by not "shoving WebM down everyone's throat" by flipping the WebM-only switch on YouTube. Instead, they can just have their puppet poison the well wrt H.264)

Anyway, what's your problem? Microsoft already said they will support WebM in IE10. So I don't even know what you and Thom are pissed about. Microsoft is going to support both H.264 and WebM (well, maybe just WebM now; as I said, very convenient for Google).

Edited 2012-05-02 18:12 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Wed 2nd May 2012 18:44 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

It's a subtle lie. They basically argued that reluctance to use WebM (which hinders Open Web progress) is caused by legal WebM inferiority, while supposedly H.264 is legally superior and has low risk.

They didn't know that Motorola Mobility (backed by Google) would start charging 1.2 million times what the average H.264 patent goes for

That's exactly my point which shows how foolish MS argument is. In patent field you never know who will suddenly come up with what kind of claims. So inherently there is always risk, and thus using WebM is in no way worse than using H.264. Therefore real reason was just their animosity towards open codecs or whatever it was. I agree though that in codecs war (WebM vs H.264 and etc.) MS is not the main culprit, and now Apple is worse in that regard (i.e. Apple causes more damage to development of the Open Web).

Reply Parent Score: 2