It's actually pretty funny the way you post links,
as though they actually prove your statements, when in fact they don't do anything of the sort. Is it that you don't bother to read them or that you hope we won't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
insike 
So, the MPEG-LA cartel means that h264 is not free. Thanks for confirming that.
MPEG-LA isn't a cartel, it's simply an entity that handles the licensing for an open standard. An open standard that is available for anyone to license, and which, because it is a standard isn't actually controlled by any of the companies who have contributed patents to the pool. You're right, it isn't free, but it is open. WebM is free, but it isn't open.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
insike
Also, it's not about defending Google's actions. It's about pointing out that what Google did happens to be to the benefit of the open web, regardless of their actual intentions. You have also failed to address the fact that the likes of Opera and Mozilla, well known open web proponents, applaud Google's move.
...
It is not royalty-free, and therefore violates the W3C patent policy.
I think it's kind of interesting that I write an entire post about how Google is a threat to an open web, how this and other acts of theirs, such as the conspiracy with Verizon to kill net neutrality, all represent assaults on the open Web (which you claim to be all about) and you chop up the reply to eliminate any references to these facts and simply regurgitate your mantra of, "It is not royalty-free, and therefore violates the W3C patent policy."
So, again, I have to ask, are you a troll or just completely stupid? Maybe, it's entirely possible.
Or, are you a shill being paid to come here to post in support of Google. Frankly, at this point, I'm leaning toward this latter explanation of your behavior, and the primary reason I have decided you are a shill is two-fold. First, your dogmatic sticking to your talking points as demonstrated in the reply I've quoted. Your reply in this instance is practically a non-sequitur, but, as noted, you've chopped it up to try to mask that fact. In other words, you haven't been told what to say in response to charges that Google itself is a threat to an open Web, but you're paid to respond to all charges, so you have to make it seem as though you are responding to something else. Secondly, the limited number of your talking points, which are basically limited to one: "H.264 is not royalty-free, and therefore violates the W3C patent policy." Oh, and let's not overlook the bursty nature of your posts, as though you are coming here on some sort of schedule.
You're wrong on all counts, of course, but I'm happy we've exposed why you are really here.
Apple would still need to either deliver ads or put content behind a paywall.
