Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 25th Mar 2013 21:09 UTC
Legal Late last week, Nokia dropped what many consider to be a bomb on the WebM project: a list of patents that VP8 supposedly infringes in the form of an IETF IPR declaration. The list has made the rounds around the web, often reported as proof that VP8 infringes upon Nokia's patents. All this stuff rang a bell. Haven't we been here before? Yup, we have, with another open source codec called Opus. Qualcomm and Huawei made the same claims as Nokia did, but they turned out to be complete bogus. As it turns out, this is standard practice in the dirty business of the patent licensing industry.
Thread beginning with comment 556681
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Here we go again
by Vanders on Tue 26th Mar 2013 13:52 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Here we go again"
Vanders
Member since:
2005-07-06

They can enforce whatever is the dominate codec through android and chrome, lets not forget they own YouTube and that is the largest video site in the world ...

Yet they haven't done that. They could, but they haven't. In fact they've done quite the opposite, by working with standardisation bodies to get VP8 & WebM properly included as a future web standard, rather than unilaterally deciding to make it a de-facto standard.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[8]: Here we go again
by lucas_maximus on Tue 26th Mar 2013 14:10 in reply to "RE[7]: Here we go again"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Yet they haven't done that. They could, but they haven't. In fact they've done quite the opposite, by working with standardisation bodies to get VP8 & WebM properly included as a future web standard, rather than unilaterally deciding to make it a de-facto standard.


The point is that every where else is h264 and h265 is already an accepted standard.

Time they get it approved it won't matter whether it is a web standard anyway.

It not like Google cares about Web standards when it doesn't suit them. Look at the markup for google it is fecking awful.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[9]: Here we go again
by WereCatf on Tue 26th Mar 2013 14:16 in reply to "RE[8]: Here we go again"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

The point is that every where else is h264 and h265 is already an accepted standard.

Time they get it approved it won't matter whether it is a web standard anyway.


It's not about toppling the established codecs or about becoming the new, #1 codec to use, it's all about the lowest common denominator: if VP8 or VP9 or some other royalty-free codec were to be defined as the web standard then ALL developers -- mobile, desktop, embedded, those aiming for the established OSes, those aiming for niche OSes -- would have atleast one, single codec to fall back on if everything else were to fail. As such it'll always matter, just not in the way you seem to understand or care.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[9]: Here we go again
by Radio on Tue 26th Mar 2013 15:17 in reply to "RE[8]: Here we go again"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

The point is that every where else is h264 and h265 is already an accepted standard.

h.264 is not an accepted standard, it is a de facto standard.

h.265 is a standard only amongst big companies who have put their money in it, and who want to tie everybody else in it to extract royalties. It is all about increasing their money, not the common good.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: Here we go again
by galvanash on Tue 26th Mar 2013 15:45 in reply to "RE[8]: Here we go again"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

The point is that every where else is h264 and h265 is already an accepted standard.


The point is that every where else is h264 and h265 is already an accepted standard for commercial endeavors where there is someone willing to pay for it.

There, I fixed that for you.

Reply Parent Score: 1