sorry, i should say that they claim the webm-project isn't owned by google. what that means legally i am not sure. does it make it harder to litigate? i really don't know just wondered after seeing that on the web site.
Yes, but H.264 has a strong patent portfolio behind it, as well as a large group of companies who have a decided interest in defending it if it does become the target of patent suits. It's in a much stronger position that WebM, which has nothing much of anything behind it besides Google's word, and we've all seen what that's worth. And this is all besides the technical issues that have been discussed throughout the thread and which show WebM to be particularly weak in several areas. Essentially this is "trash technology" that Google is throwing out into the market for the sole purpose of generating FUD.
And, the Google Books Program, and Google's theft of property from hard working writers around the world has everything to do with this issue as it points directly to the corporate character at Google, their disregard for law and the creative efforts of others, and the fact that they don't even bother to consider who they are hurting, nor do they care, when they take actions such as this. Google is a predatory and sociopathic corporation.
Like I said, better, but not 100%. Besides, didn't this very web site already mention a lawsuit against apple and others over mpeg4 patents?
The portfolio point is good to keep in mind, as sure, MPEG-LA more than likely has more than On2 did. Of course, the fact that you are not supposed to be able to patent algorithms in the first place would negate this stupid mess.
The google books controversy stems on whether or not it is legal to make available a snippet of copyrighted books and it still be fair use. One side says no, and they are not allowed to index it period. Copyright laws on this subject are not exactly clear for this digital issue, hence lawsuits.
But this isn't exactly a Google issue; many movies, games etc. are orphan works, or abandonware. Many would have no issue paying the copyright holder, if they could find them or if they even still existed. Old films cannot be restored, even if it means preserving it without the consent of the copyright holder.
It's all back to the whole cynical/selfish vs. altruistic reasons for anything. Google wants to make money by indexing and getting hits for books vs. they want to build a library to preserve works.
sorry, i should say that they claim the webm-project isn't owned by google. what that means legally i am not sure. does it make it harder to litigate? i really don't know just wondered after seeing that on the web site.
I already posted that On2 made VP8, which is webm, and they bought them for $106 million, then at the request of the FSF people, released it into the public or open domain, with an irrevocable license on the patents.
The spec needs work, but is final so that it can be utilized by the hardware decoders, software decoders/encoders, etc.
It isn't owned by Google in the sense that they released it so that no one person owns it, if that is how you can look at it.
i have to laugh at the comments that point out how the commentator has all the problems solved and proclaims the ones actually doing the work as 'idiots'.
of course Stallman has done absolutely nothing in his career but sit around and mouth off right? to bad he never accomplished anything...sad. if only he was more like you.
Look, I'm not claiming to have accomplished anything for anyone here, just saying that Stallman isn't exactly the most rational or unbiased guy to ask about WebM. Even in the FOSS world lots of people have grown tired of his all or nothing attitude, there really is no middle ground for him. How serious can you take a guy that doesn't even want to use a cellphone or computer if it contains even a single part that isn't based on an open design? Last time I read something about Stallman it was about the computer with some kind of crappy Chinese MIPS CPU he was using, just because it was 'open'. The guy seem to prefer holding back innovation out of idealism, hardly the right person to judge on advanced video codecs if you ask me.
Look, I'm not claiming to have accomplished anything for anyone here, just saying that Stallman isn't exactly the most rational or unbiased guy to ask about WebM. Even in the FOSS world lots of people have grown tired of his all or nothing attitude, there really is no middle ground for him. How serious can you take a guy that doesn't even want to use a cellphone or computer if it contains even a single part that isn't based on an open design? Last time I read something about Stallman it was about the computer with some kind of crappy Chinese MIPS CPU he was using, just because it was 'open'. The guy seem to prefer holding back innovation out of idealism, hardly the right person to judge on advanced video codecs if you ask me.
i am not saying that he doesn't have something 'wrong' with him...lol...but it is his hard-ass, unforgiving, zero tolerance, 'free' thoroughness that leads me to think that webm is probably 'free' and won't be 'yanked out from under us' like was insinuated in the post i originally responded to. yet, i was berated that he doesn't know what he is talking about or is someone you can't hold up as an authority on those matters?
i never mentioned anything about the exact code or quality of the code/implementation. others inserted that.
I have scoured their licensing terms about encoders and decoders and have not found any exceptions for non-profit use. Web use is already accounted for.
Please link to and quote the clause where this is stated. This is news to me.
I don't know this from reading the licensing terms, but from the fact that x264 -an open source h264 encoder/decoder- have negotiated a for-profit licensing scheme with MPEG-LA to allow commercial parties to legally use x264 in their products, while their codec has always been freely redistributed and used in many non-profit open-source projects, and it still is. And because even for commercial use there is a lower bound on the profits you make before you have to pay royalties. I'm not entirely sure what that lower bound is, but I'm pretty sure it was over $0 (ie: non-profit).
... The google books controversy stems on whether or not it is legal to make available a snippet of copyrighted books and it still be fair use. One side says no, and they are not allowed to index it period. Copyright laws on this subject are not exactly clear for this digital issue, hence lawsuits. ...
That is not what the Google Books Program was about. The Google books program was about wholesale copyright violation for commercial purposes. Fair use does not apply and Google's newest lawyer knows that. Copyright laws are completely clear on this issue. These are the factors governing whther Fair use applies:
Quote:
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
(1) The use by Google was purely commercial in nature, not even involving First Amendment issues and thus does not constitute fair use
(2) & (3) Books, the content of which google scanned in their entirety, and intended to use in their entirety for purely commecial purposes.
(4) The effect on the market would be to make it impossible to sell what Google intended to give away for free, thus destroying any potential market. (This is Google's MO in all projects it undertakes.)
There is no controversy regarding whether Google engaged in criminal activities. They absolutely did with wanton diregard for the rights of copyright holders. And, I know you FSF kids are ferocious about protecting the rights of copyright holders, that's why you were so upset about VLC on iOS, and felt the need to defend the GPL copyright license. You can't have it both ways.
i am not saying that he doesn't have something 'wrong' with him...lol...but it is his hard-ass, unforgiving, zero tolerance, 'free' thoroughness that leads me to think that webm is probably 'free' and won't be 'yanked out from under us' like was insinuated in the post i originally responded to. yet, i was berated that he doesn't know what he is talking about or is someone you can't hold up as an authority on those matters?
i never mentioned anything about the exact code or quality of the code/implementation. others inserted that.
While Stallman might be an expert on FOSS, operating systems, and many other topics related to computers, operating systems, licensing, and who knows what kind of other technology, that doesn't automatically mean he knows much about video codecs, how they work, the algorithms involved, how they can be patented and how similar they are between different codecs. I happen to know a little bit about them having written an MPEG II decoder myself and having studied the H264 specs extensively, but even I don't pretend to know one tenth about the subject of what the people who developed x264 know. Still, even to me the claim that WebM is patent free is very dubious. Video coding is a very specific field that has been very extensively researched, and the solutions this research has converged to are all very similar. Even between MPEG II and H264 there are so many similarities that you can safely assume anything In between them uses many overlapping technologies, and all of them will be patented by someone, nothing of this suddenly appeared out of thin air. Personally I think no video codec exists that doesn't violate some other codecs patents.
But that's all just some ramblings from a random guy on the internet, like I said, other people know much, much more about this topic than me. The x264 devs dug through the VP8 specs and code, and they concluded it is extremely likely VP8 violates H264 patents, and that's not even considering patented technology in other codecs.
I don't know this from reading the licensing terms, but from the fact that x264 -an open source h264 encoder/decoder- have negotiated a for-profit licensing scheme with MPEG-LA to allow commercial parties to legally use x264 in their products, while their codec has always been freely redistributed and used in many non-profit open-source projects, and it still is. And because even for commercial use there is a lower bound on the profits you make before you have to pay royalties. I'm not entirely sure what that lower bound is, but I'm pretty sure it was over $0 (ie: non-profit).
I think they simply turn a blind eye to it
No, the reason I believe is that there aren't any patents for the codec in France, where the video lan project is. Although I remember Dolby or DTS complaining about vlc and their code hosted on a university server. I cannot find it since all the hits come up with the results of apple.
The LAME mp3 project also should be paying royalties, but the main holders of the tech also didn't care, seeing as it make the codec more popular.
On that page about the licensing to people with commercial intentions, they still have to report how many copies of their software they sell and pay royalties on it to MPEG-LA. The x264 people are not involved in that transaction.
No, the reason I believe is that there aren't any patents for the codec in France, where the video lan project is. Although I remember Dolby or DTS complaining about vlc and their code hosted on a university server. I cannot find it since all the hits come up with the results of apple.
The LAME mp3 project also should be paying royalties, but the main holders of the tech also didn't care, seeing as it make the codec more popular.
Well if that were true (which is plausible), it kind of proves my point: the fact that h264 contains patentable technology, doesn't mean it is impossible for licensed, commercial implementations and 'semi-legal' open-source ones to coexist, and that the risk that h264 will somehow trick everyone into paying up to the MPEG-LA is imaginary. It's pretty obvious MPEG-LA is not out to crush the x264 project, instead they are cooperative in allowing the development of an open source codec and even taking x264 licensees, and by making the spec royalty free for noncommercial use. IANAL, but I'd assume MPEG-LA would have a pretty hard time shutting down x264 in court if they are now making money off it's use. Things don't always have to be just black or white, and that holds for both h264's licensing and vp8 being patent-free.
While Stallman might be an expert on FOSS, operating systems, and many other topics related to computers, operating systems, licensing, and who knows what kind of other technology, that doesn't automatically mean he knows much about video codecs, how they work, the algorithms involved, how they can be patented and how similar they are between different codecs. I happen to know a little bit about them having written an MPEG II decoder myself and having studied the H264 specs extensively, but even I don't pretend to know one tenth about the subject of what the people who developed x264 know. Still, even to me the claim that WebM is patent free is very dubious. Video coding is a very specific field that has been very extensively researched, and the solutions this research has converged to are all very similar. Even between MPEG II and H264 there are so many similarities that you can safely assume anything In between them uses many overlapping technologies, and all of them will be patented by someone, nothing of this suddenly appeared out of thin air. Personally I think no video codec exists that doesn't violate some other codecs patents.
But that's all just some ramblings from a random guy on the internet, like I said, other people know much, much more about this topic than me. The x264 devs dug through the VP8 specs and code, and they concluded it is extremely likely VP8 violates H264 patents, and that's not even considering patented technology in other codecs.
i know nothing about video codecs. i remember awhile back one of the mpeg group? saying ogg probably violated some of the patents, but, so far no one has done anything about it. and all in all it doesn't really matter to the consumer. we go as the winds of technology throw us (unless we are like stallman)
ranting, rambling on the forum is just fun to do but in the end what does it accomplish? nada. lol.
What kind of people are running Google? It feels like a company that has lost its soul and is being run by bean counters instead of innovators (like Apple in the 90's)..
So why is Mozilla still holding the line here? Seems counter intuitive to me. They addressed Mozilla's concerns and many of the content creators are the same entities as the patent holders and the hardware makers. How will this affect Sony's Google TV efforts? If Google is trying to force people to use Flash, what do we need HTML for?
Mozilla gets most of it's operating budget from who? .. Ready for it? ... Google!!!
Google has been very, very, good to Mozilla. It is even reported that Nokia puts more than a little skin into the Mozilla pot too.
sorry you don't like the dude. maybe you should take a lesson from him on this charisma you speak of.
Why? I'm not trying to impress the likes of you, and I complemented him so why are you so defensive on his part? I do just fine thankee-sai.
Quote:
i KNOW i wasn't being stroked moron. i was saying i don't care and don't need someone to give me kudos. wise up genius.
Nice grammar, and your sarcasm/irony use online is broken. Am I a moron or a genius in your world. I must be a true genius then, because otherwise why would you be so defensive and resentful? So you must be jealous of my prodigious intellect and your posted reactions to it, because we insult and comment on what we hate, and you insulted and commented on my intelligence! So Thank you for the unintended, but much welcomed vote of confidence!
Now take your little ad hom generator break it, because your posts are not engaging in debate when you use directed terms like idiot and moron to describe another poster. A sure first sign you have lost your grip on the issue and are flailing with a lack of fact and logic. Again, maybe that's the best you are able to muster now that you seem to be showing aggression and nervousness in my online presence.
Which is interesting since I?m certain it?s Google Chrome that has been eating into Firefox?s marketshare across platforms.
Yes. I've been waiting for Google to kneecap Mozilla by pushing Chrome heavily and shutting off the faucet for $$. Apparently the contractual opportunity to do so is this year. And poor old Mozilla has been played as the public voice of conscience against H.264 for the past year just so Google can say they didn't start the defection from H.264.
Actually someone at Google came up with a fairly decent plan, they just didn't realize the MPEG-LA group would grant non-comercial licenses to the limit of the contributed patents making the brouhaha pretty silly now.
i am not saying that he doesn't have something 'wrong' with him...lol...but it is his hard-ass, unforgiving, zero tolerance, 'free' thoroughness that leads me to think that webm is probably 'free' and won't be 'yanked out from under us' like was insinuated in the post i originally responded to. yet, i was berated that he doesn't know what he is talking about or is someone you can't hold up as an authority on those matters?
i never mentioned anything about the exact code or quality of the code/implementation. others inserted that.
I didn't berate you. I said posted that Stallman doesn't know whether WebM violates any H.264 patents or not. You got all riled up over me countering your opinion of some other human being that could not possibly have perfect knowledge and consider that is berating you? It wasn't then but this is now: Get. A. Clue!
Well if that were true (which is plausible), it kind of proves my point: the fact that h264 contains patentable technology, doesn't mean it is impossible for licensed, commercial implementations and 'semi-legal' open-source ones to coexist, and that the risk that h264 will somehow trick everyone into paying up to the MPEG-LA is imaginary. It's pretty obvious MPEG-LA is not out to crush the x264 project, instead they are cooperative in allowing the development of an open source codec and even taking x264 licensees, and by making the spec royalty free for noncommercial use. IANAL, but I'd assume MPEG-LA would have a pretty hard time shutting down x264 in court if they are now making money off it's use. Things don't always have to be just black or white, and that holds for both h264's licensing and vp8 being patent-free.
Good points. Except one project, TCPMP, an excellent OSS media player for devices back in the stone age (aka palm and WM), they received a cease and desist order for having the aac decoding library (and I believe later the avc library). They were not making any money off of it either.
People like Mozilla who receive 50 million dollars a year from Google probably won't slip past MPEG's radar.
Comments
Uh, in what way???
sorry, i should say that they claim the webm-project isn't owned by google. what that means legally i am not sure. does it make it harder to litigate? i really don't know just wondered after seeing that on the web site.
Yes, but H.264 has a strong patent portfolio behind it, as well as a large group of companies who have a decided interest in defending it if it does become the target of patent suits. It's in a much stronger position that WebM, which has nothing much of anything behind it besides Google's word, and we've all seen what that's worth. And this is all besides the technical issues that have been discussed throughout the thread and which show WebM to be particularly weak in several areas. Essentially this is "trash technology" that Google is throwing out into the market for the sole purpose of generating FUD.
And, the Google Books Program, and Google's theft of property from hard working writers around the world has everything to do with this issue as it points directly to the corporate character at Google, their disregard for law and the creative efforts of others, and the fact that they don't even bother to consider who they are hurting, nor do they care, when they take actions such as this. Google is a predatory and sociopathic corporation.
Like I said, better, but not 100%. Besides, didn't this very web site already mention a lawsuit against apple and others over mpeg4 patents?
The portfolio point is good to keep in mind, as sure, MPEG-LA more than likely has more than On2 did. Of course, the fact that you are not supposed to be able to patent algorithms in the first place would negate this stupid mess.
The google books controversy stems on whether or not it is legal to make available a snippet of copyrighted books and it still be fair use. One side says no, and they are not allowed to index it period. Copyright laws on this subject are not exactly clear for this digital issue, hence lawsuits.
But this isn't exactly a Google issue; many movies, games etc. are orphan works, or abandonware. Many would have no issue paying the copyright holder, if they could find them or if they even still existed. Old films cannot be restored, even if it means preserving it without the consent of the copyright holder.
It's all back to the whole cynical/selfish vs. altruistic reasons for anything. Google wants to make money by indexing and getting hits for books vs. they want to build a library to preserve works.
sorry, i should say that they claim the webm-project isn't owned by google. what that means legally i am not sure. does it make it harder to litigate? i really don't know just wondered after seeing that on the web site.
I already posted that On2 made VP8, which is webm, and they bought them for $106 million, then at the request of the FSF people, released it into the public or open domain, with an irrevocable license on the patents.
The spec needs work, but is final so that it can be utilized by the hardware decoders, software decoders/encoders, etc.
It isn't owned by Google in the sense that they released it so that no one person owns it, if that is how you can look at it.
i have to laugh at the comments that point out how the commentator has all the problems solved and proclaims the ones actually doing the work as 'idiots'.
of course Stallman has done absolutely nothing in his career but sit around and mouth off right? to bad he never accomplished anything...sad. if only he was more like you.
Look, I'm not claiming to have accomplished anything for anyone here, just saying that Stallman isn't exactly the most rational or unbiased guy to ask about WebM. Even in the FOSS world lots of people have grown tired of his all or nothing attitude, there really is no middle ground for him. How serious can you take a guy that doesn't even want to use a cellphone or computer if it contains even a single part that isn't based on an open design? Last time I read something about Stallman it was about the computer with some kind of crappy Chinese MIPS CPU he was using, just because it was 'open'. The guy seem to prefer holding back innovation out of idealism, hardly the right person to judge on advanced video codecs if you ask me.
Look, I'm not claiming to have accomplished anything for anyone here, just saying that Stallman isn't exactly the most rational or unbiased guy to ask about WebM. Even in the FOSS world lots of people have grown tired of his all or nothing attitude, there really is no middle ground for him. How serious can you take a guy that doesn't even want to use a cellphone or computer if it contains even a single part that isn't based on an open design? Last time I read something about Stallman it was about the computer with some kind of crappy Chinese MIPS CPU he was using, just because it was 'open'. The guy seem to prefer holding back innovation out of idealism, hardly the right person to judge on advanced video codecs if you ask me.
i am not saying that he doesn't have something 'wrong' with him...lol...but it is his hard-ass, unforgiving, zero tolerance, 'free' thoroughness that leads me to think that webm is probably 'free' and won't be 'yanked out from under us' like was insinuated in the post i originally responded to. yet, i was berated that he doesn't know what he is talking about or is someone you can't hold up as an authority on those matters?
i never mentioned anything about the exact code or quality of the code/implementation. others inserted that.
I have scoured their licensing terms about encoders and decoders and have not found any exceptions for non-profit use. Web use is already accounted for.
Please link to and quote the clause where this is stated. This is news to me.
I don't know this from reading the licensing terms, but from the fact that x264 -an open source h264 encoder/decoder- have negotiated a for-profit licensing scheme with MPEG-LA to allow commercial parties to legally use x264 in their products, while their codec has always been freely redistributed and used in many non-profit open-source projects, and it still is. And because even for commercial use there is a lower bound on the profits you make before you have to pay royalties. I'm not entirely sure what that lower bound is, but I'm pretty sure it was over $0 (ie: non-profit).
... The google books controversy stems on whether or not it is legal to make available a snippet of copyrighted books and it still be fair use. One side says no, and they are not allowed to index it period. Copyright laws on this subject are not exactly clear for this digital issue, hence lawsuits. ...
That is not what the Google Books Program was about. The Google books program was about wholesale copyright violation for commercial purposes. Fair use does not apply and Google's newest lawyer knows that. Copyright laws are completely clear on this issue. These are the factors governing whther Fair use applies:
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
(1) The use by Google was purely commercial in nature, not even involving First Amendment issues and thus does not constitute fair use
(2) & (3) Books, the content of which google scanned in their entirety, and intended to use in their entirety for purely commecial purposes.
(4) The effect on the market would be to make it impossible to sell what Google intended to give away for free, thus destroying any potential market. (This is Google's MO in all projects it undertakes.)
There is no controversy regarding whether Google engaged in criminal activities. They absolutely did with wanton diregard for the rights of copyright holders. And, I know you FSF kids are ferocious about protecting the rights of copyright holders, that's why you were so upset about VLC on iOS, and felt the need to defend the GPL copyright license. You can't have it both ways.
i am not saying that he doesn't have something 'wrong' with him...lol...but it is his hard-ass, unforgiving, zero tolerance, 'free' thoroughness that leads me to think that webm is probably 'free' and won't be 'yanked out from under us' like was insinuated in the post i originally responded to. yet, i was berated that he doesn't know what he is talking about or is someone you can't hold up as an authority on those matters?
i never mentioned anything about the exact code or quality of the code/implementation. others inserted that.
While Stallman might be an expert on FOSS, operating systems, and many other topics related to computers, operating systems, licensing, and who knows what kind of other technology, that doesn't automatically mean he knows much about video codecs, how they work, the algorithms involved, how they can be patented and how similar they are between different codecs. I happen to know a little bit about them having written an MPEG II decoder myself and having studied the H264 specs extensively, but even I don't pretend to know one tenth about the subject of what the people who developed x264 know. Still, even to me the claim that WebM is patent free is very dubious. Video coding is a very specific field that has been very extensively researched, and the solutions this research has converged to are all very similar. Even between MPEG II and H264 there are so many similarities that you can safely assume anything In between them uses many overlapping technologies, and all of them will be patented by someone, nothing of this suddenly appeared out of thin air. Personally I think no video codec exists that doesn't violate some other codecs patents.
But that's all just some ramblings from a random guy on the internet, like I said, other people know much, much more about this topic than me. The x264 devs dug through the VP8 specs and code, and they concluded it is extremely likely VP8 violates H264 patents, and that's not even considering patented technology in other codecs.
I don't know this from reading the licensing terms, but from the fact that x264 -an open source h264 encoder/decoder- have negotiated a for-profit licensing scheme with MPEG-LA to allow commercial parties to legally use x264 in their products, while their codec has always been freely redistributed and used in many non-profit open-source projects, and it still is. And because even for commercial use there is a lower bound on the profits you make before you have to pay royalties. I'm not entirely sure what that lower bound is, but I'm pretty sure it was over $0 (ie: non-profit).
I think they simply turn a blind eye to it
No, the reason I believe is that there aren't any patents for the codec in France, where the video lan project is. Although I remember Dolby or DTS complaining about vlc and their code hosted on a university server. I cannot find it since all the hits come up with the results of apple.
The LAME mp3 project also should be paying royalties, but the main holders of the tech also didn't care, seeing as it make the codec more popular.
On that page about the licensing to people with commercial intentions, they still have to report how many copies of their software they sell and pay royalties on it to MPEG-LA. The x264 people are not involved in that transaction.
I think they simply turn a blind eye to it
No, the reason I believe is that there aren't any patents for the codec in France, where the video lan project is. Although I remember Dolby or DTS complaining about vlc and their code hosted on a university server. I cannot find it since all the hits come up with the results of apple.
The LAME mp3 project also should be paying royalties, but the main holders of the tech also didn't care, seeing as it make the codec more popular.
Well if that were true (which is plausible), it kind of proves my point: the fact that h264 contains patentable technology, doesn't mean it is impossible for licensed, commercial implementations and 'semi-legal' open-source ones to coexist, and that the risk that h264 will somehow trick everyone into paying up to the MPEG-LA is imaginary. It's pretty obvious MPEG-LA is not out to crush the x264 project, instead they are cooperative in allowing the development of an open source codec and even taking x264 licensees, and by making the spec royalty free for noncommercial use. IANAL, but I'd assume MPEG-LA would have a pretty hard time shutting down x264 in court if they are now making money off it's use. Things don't always have to be just black or white, and that holds for both h264's licensing and vp8 being patent-free.
While Stallman might be an expert on FOSS, operating systems, and many other topics related to computers, operating systems, licensing, and who knows what kind of other technology, that doesn't automatically mean he knows much about video codecs, how they work, the algorithms involved, how they can be patented and how similar they are between different codecs. I happen to know a little bit about them having written an MPEG II decoder myself and having studied the H264 specs extensively, but even I don't pretend to know one tenth about the subject of what the people who developed x264 know. Still, even to me the claim that WebM is patent free is very dubious. Video coding is a very specific field that has been very extensively researched, and the solutions this research has converged to are all very similar. Even between MPEG II and H264 there are so many similarities that you can safely assume anything In between them uses many overlapping technologies, and all of them will be patented by someone, nothing of this suddenly appeared out of thin air. Personally I think no video codec exists that doesn't violate some other codecs patents.
But that's all just some ramblings from a random guy on the internet, like I said, other people know much, much more about this topic than me. The x264 devs dug through the VP8 specs and code, and they concluded it is extremely likely VP8 violates H264 patents, and that's not even considering patented technology in other codecs.
i know nothing about video codecs. i remember awhile back one of the mpeg group? saying ogg probably violated some of the patents, but, so far no one has done anything about it. and all in all it doesn't really matter to the consumer. we go as the winds of technology throw us (unless we are like stallman)
ranting, rambling on the forum is just fun to do but in the end what does it accomplish? nada. lol.
What kind of people are running Google? It feels like a company that has lost its soul and is being run by bean counters instead of innovators (like Apple in the 90's)..
His names Eric Shit. Or something like that
So why is Mozilla still holding the line here? Seems counter intuitive to me. They addressed Mozilla's concerns and many of the content creators are the same entities as the patent holders and the hardware makers. How will this affect Sony's Google TV efforts? If Google is trying to force people to use Flash, what do we need HTML for?
Mozilla gets most of it's operating budget from who? .. Ready for it? ... Google!!!
Google has been very, very, good to Mozilla. It is even reported that Nokia puts more than a little skin into the Mozilla pot too.
Mozilla gets most of it's operating budget from who? .. Ready for it? ... Google!!!
Which is interesting since I’m certain it’s Google Chrome that has been eating into Firefox’s marketshare across platforms.
sorry you don't like the dude. maybe you should take a lesson from him on this charisma you speak of.
Why? I'm not trying to impress the likes of you, and I complemented him so why are you so defensive on his part? I do just fine thankee-sai.
i KNOW i wasn't being stroked moron. i was saying i don't care and don't need someone to give me kudos. wise up genius.
Nice grammar, and your sarcasm/irony use online is broken. Am I a moron or a genius in your world. I must be a true genius then, because otherwise why would you be so defensive and resentful? So you must be jealous of my prodigious intellect and your posted reactions to it, because we insult and comment on what we hate, and you insulted and commented on my intelligence! So Thank you for the unintended, but much welcomed vote of confidence!
Now take your little ad hom generator break it, because your posts are not engaging in debate when you use directed terms like idiot and moron to describe another poster. A sure first sign you have lost your grip on the issue and are flailing with a lack of fact and logic. Again, maybe that's the best you are able to muster now that you seem to be showing aggression and nervousness in my online presence.
Which is interesting since I?m certain it?s Google Chrome that has been eating into Firefox?s marketshare across platforms.
Yes. I've been waiting for Google to kneecap Mozilla by pushing Chrome heavily and shutting off the faucet for $$. Apparently the contractual opportunity to do so is this year. And poor old Mozilla has been played as the public voice of conscience against H.264 for the past year just so Google can say they didn't start the defection from H.264.
Actually someone at Google came up with a fairly decent plan, they just didn't realize the MPEG-LA group would grant non-comercial licenses to the limit of the contributed patents making the brouhaha pretty silly now.
i am not saying that he doesn't have something 'wrong' with him...lol...but it is his hard-ass, unforgiving, zero tolerance, 'free' thoroughness that leads me to think that webm is probably 'free' and won't be 'yanked out from under us' like was insinuated in the post i originally responded to. yet, i was berated that he doesn't know what he is talking about or is someone you can't hold up as an authority on those matters?
i never mentioned anything about the exact code or quality of the code/implementation. others inserted that.
I didn't berate you. I said posted that Stallman doesn't know whether WebM violates any H.264 patents or not. You got all riled up over me countering your opinion of some other human being that could not possibly have perfect knowledge and consider that is berating you? It wasn't then but this is now: Get. A. Clue!
Well if that were true (which is plausible), it kind of proves my point: the fact that h264 contains patentable technology, doesn't mean it is impossible for licensed, commercial implementations and 'semi-legal' open-source ones to coexist, and that the risk that h264 will somehow trick everyone into paying up to the MPEG-LA is imaginary. It's pretty obvious MPEG-LA is not out to crush the x264 project, instead they are cooperative in allowing the development of an open source codec and even taking x264 licensees, and by making the spec royalty free for noncommercial use. IANAL, but I'd assume MPEG-LA would have a pretty hard time shutting down x264 in court if they are now making money off it's use. Things don't always have to be just black or white, and that holds for both h264's licensing and vp8 being patent-free.
Good points. Except one project, TCPMP, an excellent OSS media player for devices back in the stone age (aka palm and WM), they received a cease and desist order for having the aac decoding library (and I believe later the avc library). They were not making any money off of it either.
People like Mozilla who receive 50 million dollars a year from Google probably won't slip past MPEG's radar.