Because there needs to be an open standard to ensure an open web.
Nope. If you use a codec that isn't supported by popular browsers, then that's bad development. It's not lack of an "open web".
If a browser doesn't support a widely implemented codec, then that's bad business, too. Again, it has nothing to do with and "open web".
Quote:
Remember the gif mess? The W3C learned from that. But Apple and Nokia refused to allow for an open baseline codec.
Nope, I don't remember there being much of a "mess" at all. I was right there coding html for Mosaic 2.0 and .gif and .jpeg just worked as far as I know. Then came GIF89, and that was added to browsers pretty quickly. Finally, somewhere along the line, .png was added. It really wasn't a problem.
If Safari and IE support h.264 in a <video> tag, we can start coding for it right now. If Chrome and Firefox support some currently inferior codec for whatever reason, that's their choice, and we can code for that, too. To ensure compatibility, we can code for both (or more). Then plug-ins will be made available that make whatever codec usable by whatever browser anyway, and one codec will come out on top, at which point we can simplify our code by coding for just that one codec. That would let the market decide.
Then if that one codec is suddenly made unavailable for licensing or other legal reasons, a batch conversion tool could quickly be used to fix broken links. Not a real problem.
In the end, it's far better to have two choices of codec to use in a <video> tag than none at all, no matter how much security we might have that such coding isn't just temporary.
Nope. If you use a codec that isn't supported by popular browsers, then that's bad development. It's not lack of an "open web".
If a browser doesn't support a widely implemented codec, then that's bad business, too. Again, it has nothing to do with and "open web".
Yes, it's exactly an open web which is the issue here. H264 is incompatible with an open web.
Quote:
Nope, I don't remember there being much of a "mess" at all. I was right there coding html for Mosaic 2.0 and .gif and .jpeg just worked as far as I know. Then came GIF89, and that was added to browsers pretty quickly. Finally, somewhere along the line, .png was added. It really wasn't a problem.
The format was affected by patents, and there was a huge mess around that. Maybe you are too young to remember. A lot of people who are opposed to an open web seem to be young and ignorant of the historical facts.
Quote:
If Safari and IE support h.264 in a <video> tag, we can start coding for it right now.
Safari and IE9's market share combined is around 5%. You can start coding for 5%, or you can start coding for 40% (Chrome + Firefox).
Quote:
In the end, it's far better to have two choices of codec to use in a <video> tag than none at all, no matter how much security we might have that such coding isn't just temporary.
No, it's far better to have a standardized baseline codec. It's always possible to support more, but there should be a standard baseline codec, which is what the W3C wanted to do until Apple started refusing.
Yes, it's exactly an open web which is the issue here. H264 is incompatible with an open web.
The format was affected by patents, and there was a huge mess around that. Maybe you are too young to remember. A lot of people who are opposed to an open web seem to be young and ignorant of the historical facts.
Safari and IE9's market share combined is around 5%. You can start coding for 5%, or you can start coding for 40% (Chrome + Firefox).
No, it's far better to have a standardized baseline codec. It's always possible to support more, but there should be a standard baseline codec, which is what the W3C wanted to do until Apple started refusing.
You don't get my point. There's no open standard now. Our choice isn't between an open standard and a proprietary standard. Our choice now is between a proprietary standard and nothing. I don't want nothing.
And don't look at it as a choice between open standard and closed standard. WebM and H.264 are both proprietary standards. One is guaranteed to be free forever for developers and users (that's not the same thing as "open"). One is currently free for developers and users, and guaranteed to be free for users forever, but there's some risk that developers may have to pay a license fee in the future.
But that doesn't make WebM any better, in any way, whatsoever.
H.264 has a risk that developers may have to pay a license fee sometime in the future.
WebM has an equally valid, if not GREATER risk that it's going to be killed by patent suits. How in any way is that a better option?
And yes, I am old enough... as I said in my post, I was hand-coding html for Mosaic 2.0, and that's not a lie. There were patent issues with GIF and for the end user and for developers alike, it just wasn't too much of a problem to deal with. It was not "a huge mess". Especially not for end users, who didn't even feel a bump.
You don't get my point. There's no open standard now. Our choice isn't between an open standard and a proprietary standard. Our choice now is between a proprietary standard and nothing. I don't want nothing.
Wrong. Our choice is between a proprietary standard, and an open technology.
Quote:
WebM and H.264 are both proprietary standards.
No. WebM is not a standard. But anyone can make it a standard, since the license is so liberal.
Quote:
But that doesn't make WebM any better, in any way, whatsoever.
Yes it does, because it will be free forever.
Quote:
WebM has an equally valid, if not GREATER risk that it's going to be killed by patent suits.
Wrong. This is just FUD. Here's the reality of the situation.
In fact, H264 is much more likely to infringe on patents than WebM, because unlike On2, the MPEG-LA did not go out of its way to avoid patents.
You're still here? Why do you bother coming back and repeating yourself over and over again whilst adding nothing new? Why don't you just link to a previous post that reads exactly the same? It would save you time.
Your arguments are non existent; you have repeatedly failed to construct a sound argument as to exactly how the end-user benefits from a codec being "open" (you mean free), rather than the codec having royalties associated with it. You have repeatedly ignored the fact that there are open-source implementations of both an H.264 encoder and decoder, meaning that it is perfectly possible for Mozilla, Opera etc. to include H.264 capability without having to pay any royalties to MPEG-LA ever. The only time an end-user has to effectively pay for H.264 is when they buy a new piece of hardware or want to download/stream content that the provider is charging for anyway (free content has been granted a free licence forever from the MPEG-LA). In both these cases, the part of the cost price attributable to paying for the H.264 licence is negligibly small, or in other words, if H.264 were completely free, it wouldn't save you any money.
Obviously for you, free trumps everything, even if the other thing is so cheap it's effectively free anyway. I'd rather pay a negligibly small amount of money for quality, than have shit for free.
Yes, it's exactly an open web which is the issue here. H264 is incompatible with an open web.
H.264 has nothing to do with an open web. Ask Vint Cerf what an open web is, he'll tell you it's a standard anyone can code to. Even if you want to charge for your code, that's OK.
The rest of the post is irrelevant posturing on an anti-patnet/anti-Apple stance. It's also completely incorrect on why there isn't a single codec called out for video. But we have been over that before and you keep espousing the false anti-Apple version. Hopeless troll is all you are.
you have repeatedly failed to construct a sound argument as to exactly how the end-user benefits from a codec being "open" (you mean free), rather than the codec having royalties associated with it
So what you are saying is that you do not believe in the model of the web (free, open, royalty-free, whatever you want to call it)? Because that's what you are saying. You can't imagine any way a free, open, royalty-free standard can be absolutely necessary for something to thrive.
Quote:
You have repeatedly ignored the fact that there are open-source implementations of both an H.264 encoder and decoder, meaning that it is perfectly possible for Mozilla, Opera etc. to include H.264 capability without having to pay any royalties to MPEG-LA ever.
This has got nothing to do with source code. It's about licensing. It's using the techniques described in the patents covering H264 that costs money.
Quote:
Obviously for you, free trumps everything
No, an open web does.
Quote:
I'd rather pay a negligibly small amount of money for quality, than have shit for free.
H.264 has nothing to do with an open web. Ask Vint Cerf what an open web is, he'll tell you it's a standard anyone can code to. Even if you want to charge for your code, that's OK.
Again, it's not about source code. It's about standards. The open web is based on open, royalty-free standards. H264 is in direct violation of this basic principle.
Quote:
The rest of the post is irrelevant posturing on an anti-patnet/anti-Apple stance.
No, it is just you who are unable to counter the facts at hand, so you desperately try to dodge and weave.
Again, it's not about source code. It's about standards. The open web is based on open, royalty-free standards. H264 is in direct violation of this basic principle.
No, it is just you who are unable to counter the facts at hand, so you desperately try to dodge and weave.
You're just as uninspired in thought as the "free market economists".
I'll say it again, since you seem to ignore the FACTS for your so-called "principle".
First, neither WebM nor H.264 are open standards. They are both proprietary, owned and developed by a single entity. WebM is owned and developed by Google, and H.264 is owned and developed by MPEG-LA.
Second, WebM is guaranteed to be free to end users and content providers forever. Well, not forever. It can't be free to end users OR content providers if it's destroyed in patent court. And we see here that that is a real risk, and in fact is likely to happen. Full stop.
Meanwhile, H.264 is unlikely to be killed in court. We don't have to worry about that. We as end users are also guaranteed to be able to use it for FREE... FOREVER. Period.
Content providers, however, have only been granted temporary free use of the codec (until 2014 at the earliest). There's some risk that content providers will have to pay royalties at some point in time after 2014.
Now here's the kicker.
The RISK that WebM will at some point not be free (due to being killed in patent court) is far greater than the risk that H.264 might at some point not be free (but only to developers). That makes H.264 better than. And that's not even considering performance and quality.
So you can take your principles and shove it. I prefer better performance and less risk.
This is where your argument falls flat on its face. WebM will no longer be free when it's killed in patent court, will it?
There's no evidence whatsoever that it violates any patents. In fact, the MPEG-LA failed to find any patents, so they tried (and failed, it seems) to gather a patent pool for VP8 instead.
On2 clearly did a thorough job to avoid any patent infringements with VP8, and Google's lawyers obviously scrutinized the codec as well. In fact, Google probably owns quite a few patents that may be violated by H264!
I agree completely. H264 is not open, and WebM is not a standard.
Quote:
They are both proprietary, owned and developed by a single entity. WebM is owned and developed by Google, and H.264 is owned and developed by MPEG-LA.
This is wrong. WebM is owned and developed by the open-source WebM project. But that is really irrelevant, because anyone is free to take WebM, fork it, and create a new project without any input from anyone else (such as Google).
Quote:
Second, WebM is guaranteed to be free to end users and content providers forever. Well, not forever. It can't be free to end users OR content providers if it's destroyed in patent court. And we see here that that is a real risk, and in fact is likely to happen. Full stop.
As we see here, no one has been able to find any infringements. The MPEG-LA eventually had to give up, and decided to call for patents for a VP8 patent pool instead. But it looks like that failed too.
You seem to ignore the fact that On2's buisness revolved around owning patents, and not infringing upon patents owned by others.
Quote:
Meanwhile, H.264 is unlikely to be killed in court. We don't have to worry about that. We as end users are also guaranteed to be able to use it for FREE... FOREVER. Period.
Nope.
Quote:
The RISK that WebM will at some point not be free (due to being killed in patent court) is far greater than the risk that H.264 might at some point not be free (but only to developers). That makes H.264 better than.
Wrong. The fact that H264 is closed and incompatible with an open web means that it loses by default.
Take your vague FUD and shove it. There is no evidence of any infringement.
Wrong. The fact that H264 is closed and incompatible with an open web means that it loses by default.
Again with the propaganda.
A couple months ago I listened to Vinton Cerf speak of the necessity of the open web in supporting business cases for participating companies. That vendors that brought good solutions to the web infrastructure should be economically rewarded, but that they should do so on the level playing field of open standards.
The guy that invented the internet! And the IETF who are as inclusive and as open as they get! The guy that's a Google Fellow, y'know he works as an evangelist for the company that's providing WebM, and his official company line contradicts your stance on open standards. He doesn't speak the same language as you.
Maybe you should actually try to listen to him sometime.
Meanwhile, H.264 is unlikely to be killed in court. We don't have to worry about that. We as end users are also guaranteed to be able to use it for FREE... FOREVER. Period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by insike
Nope.
Care to elaborate?
Also, you seem to know more about On2's business than is available to the general public. Do you care to elaborate on that connection?
There's no consensus whatsoever that WebM is safe from patent challenges. Word on the street has long said otherwise.
You really sound like someone who has lost the argument, who has more riding on this than principle, who is trying to obfuscate to save your efforts to misinform.
It's a simple fact. H264 is closed. Closed technologies can never become part of any open web standard.
Quote:
A couple months ago I listened to Vinton Cerf speak of the necessity of the open web in supporting business cases for participating companies. That vendors that brought good solutions to the web infrastructure should be economically rewarded, but that they should do so on the level playing field of open standards.
It's too bad, then, that H264 is not an open standard.
The MPEG-LA is an industry cartel which can set the price to whatever suits them. If they manage to kill off WebM, there will be no reason not to screw everyone up the backside.
Quote:
Also, you seem to know more about On2's business than is available to the general public. Do you care to elaborate on that connection?
I don't know more about On2's business than anyone who isn't completely clueless. On2's business model revolved around selling video technology. It goes without saying that they needed to be careful to avoid infringing on patents, knowing about cartels like MPEG-LA and their eagerness to use any means necessary to kill off competition.
Quote:
There's no consensus whatsoever that WebM is safe from patent challenges. Word on the street has long said otherwise.
Even the x264 guy showed how On2 took specific measures to avoid patents related to H264. In addition to that, there's Google's army of lawyers. Two companies have investigated patents, and found that VP8 did not violate any.
Furthermore, the MPEG-LA has failed to produce any specific examples, and eventually had to give up. Their last desperate attempt was to set up a patent pool to get other people to come forward with patents that On2 and Google may have missed.
The patent pool seems to have been a failure as well.
And you have once again failed to address my points.
Even the x264 guy showed how On2 took specific measures to avoid patents related to H264. In addition to that, there's Google's army of lawyers. Two companies have investigated patents, and found that VP8 did not violate any.
Furthermore, the MPEG-LA has failed to produce any specific examples, and eventually had to give up. Their last desperate attempt was to set up a patent pool to get other people to come forward with patents that On2 and Google may have missed.
The patent pool seems to have been a failure as well.
And you have once again failed to address my points.
More made-up, non-established insike-fact. You are persistent in creating your own personal reality. How could anyone address untruth other than to call it so?
Quote:
Originally Posted by insike
It's a simple fact. H264 is closed. Closed technologies can never become part of any open web standard.
That's a bald faced lie. An open standard supports multiple complying implementations whether they are open or closed. That's the whole and only point.
Quote:
It's too bad, then, that H264 is not an open standard.
No, the only thing that's too bad is your displayed incompetence when it comes to talking about open standards. It's so consistently wrong that:
Flat out, I an calling you a lying shill.
A disingenuous troll.
Your long and continued track record of ignoring the actual W3C, IEEE, ISO and industry-wide accepted definitions and practices can only indicate you have no intention of playing truthfully.
The MPEG-LA is an industry cartel which can set the price to whatever suits them. If they manage to kill off WebM, there will be no reason not to screw everyone up the backside.
Anyone who's not completely clueless or completely dishonest knows that's not true. Price to end users for any internet video encoded with H.264 is free. Forever. We know that. You know that. Now be honest about it.
It costs too much to sue Google. It's much easier to sue their associates.
Exactly. Apple has more lawyers then anybody, but bullies usually pick on the small and weak, while leaving alone anybody who might stand up to them effectively.
Comments
Because there needs to be an open standard to ensure an open web.
Nope. If you use a codec that isn't supported by popular browsers, then that's bad development. It's not lack of an "open web".
If a browser doesn't support a widely implemented codec, then that's bad business, too. Again, it has nothing to do with and "open web".
Remember the gif mess? The W3C learned from that. But Apple and Nokia refused to allow for an open baseline codec.
Nope, I don't remember there being much of a "mess" at all. I was right there coding html for Mosaic 2.0 and .gif and .jpeg just worked as far as I know. Then came GIF89, and that was added to browsers pretty quickly. Finally, somewhere along the line, .png was added. It really wasn't a problem.
If Safari and IE support h.264 in a <video> tag, we can start coding for it right now. If Chrome and Firefox support some currently inferior codec for whatever reason, that's their choice, and we can code for that, too. To ensure compatibility, we can code for both (or more). Then plug-ins will be made available that make whatever codec usable by whatever browser anyway, and one codec will come out on top, at which point we can simplify our code by coding for just that one codec. That would let the market decide.
Then if that one codec is suddenly made unavailable for licensing or other legal reasons, a batch conversion tool could quickly be used to fix broken links. Not a real problem.
In the end, it's far better to have two choices of codec to use in a <video> tag than none at all, no matter how much security we might have that such coding isn't just temporary.
I wanted to let you know about grants and other types of financial help for
single moms and needy persons. grants and loans are for you to apply. on the other hand horoscopo diario you
can consult astrology and horoscope forecasts.
Nope. If you use a codec that isn't supported by popular browsers, then that's bad development. It's not lack of an "open web".
If a browser doesn't support a widely implemented codec, then that's bad business, too. Again, it has nothing to do with and "open web".
Yes, it's exactly an open web which is the issue here. H264 is incompatible with an open web.
Nope, I don't remember there being much of a "mess" at all. I was right there coding html for Mosaic 2.0 and .gif and .jpeg just worked as far as I know. Then came GIF89, and that was added to browsers pretty quickly. Finally, somewhere along the line, .png was added. It really wasn't a problem.
The format was affected by patents, and there was a huge mess around that. Maybe you are too young to remember. A lot of people who are opposed to an open web seem to be young and ignorant of the historical facts.
If Safari and IE support h.264 in a <video> tag, we can start coding for it right now.
Safari and IE9's market share combined is around 5%. You can start coding for 5%, or you can start coding for 40% (Chrome + Firefox).
In the end, it's far better to have two choices of codec to use in a <video> tag than none at all, no matter how much security we might have that such coding isn't just temporary.
No, it's far better to have a standardized baseline codec. It's always possible to support more, but there should be a standard baseline codec, which is what the W3C wanted to do until Apple started refusing.
Yes, it's exactly an open web which is the issue here. H264 is incompatible with an open web.
The format was affected by patents, and there was a huge mess around that. Maybe you are too young to remember. A lot of people who are opposed to an open web seem to be young and ignorant of the historical facts.
Safari and IE9's market share combined is around 5%. You can start coding for 5%, or you can start coding for 40% (Chrome + Firefox).
No, it's far better to have a standardized baseline codec. It's always possible to support more, but there should be a standard baseline codec, which is what the W3C wanted to do until Apple started refusing.
You don't get my point. There's no open standard now. Our choice isn't between an open standard and a proprietary standard. Our choice now is between a proprietary standard and nothing. I don't want nothing.
And don't look at it as a choice between open standard and closed standard. WebM and H.264 are both proprietary standards. One is guaranteed to be free forever for developers and users (that's not the same thing as "open"). One is currently free for developers and users, and guaranteed to be free for users forever, but there's some risk that developers may have to pay a license fee in the future.
But that doesn't make WebM any better, in any way, whatsoever.
H.264 has a risk that developers may have to pay a license fee sometime in the future.
WebM has an equally valid, if not GREATER risk that it's going to be killed by patent suits. How in any way is that a better option?
And yes, I am old enough... as I said in my post, I was hand-coding html for Mosaic 2.0, and that's not a lie. There were patent issues with GIF and for the end user and for developers alike, it just wasn't too much of a problem to deal with. It was not "a huge mess". Especially not for end users, who didn't even feel a bump.
You don't get my point. There's no open standard now. Our choice isn't between an open standard and a proprietary standard. Our choice now is between a proprietary standard and nothing. I don't want nothing.
Wrong. Our choice is between a proprietary standard, and an open technology.
WebM and H.264 are both proprietary standards.
No. WebM is not a standard. But anyone can make it a standard, since the license is so liberal.
But that doesn't make WebM any better, in any way, whatsoever.
Yes it does, because it will be free forever.
WebM has an equally valid, if not GREATER risk that it's going to be killed by patent suits.
Wrong. This is just FUD. Here's the reality of the situation.
http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/an-an...s-patent-risk/
In fact, H264 is much more likely to infringe on patents than WebM, because unlike On2, the MPEG-LA did not go out of its way to avoid patents.
Wrong. Our choice is between a proprietary standard, and an open technology.
No. WebM is not a standard. But anyone can make it a standard, since the license is so liberal.
Yes it does, because it will be free forever.
Wrong. This is just FUD. Here's the reality of the situation.
http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/an-an...s-patent-risk/
In fact, H264 is much more likely to infringe on patents than WebM, because unlike On2, the MPEG-LA did not go out of its way to avoid patents.
You're still here? Why do you bother coming back and repeating yourself over and over again whilst adding nothing new? Why don't you just link to a previous post that reads exactly the same? It would save you time.
Your arguments are non existent; you have repeatedly failed to construct a sound argument as to exactly how the end-user benefits from a codec being "open" (you mean free), rather than the codec having royalties associated with it. You have repeatedly ignored the fact that there are open-source implementations of both an H.264 encoder and decoder, meaning that it is perfectly possible for Mozilla, Opera etc. to include H.264 capability without having to pay any royalties to MPEG-LA ever. The only time an end-user has to effectively pay for H.264 is when they buy a new piece of hardware or want to download/stream content that the provider is charging for anyway (free content has been granted a free licence forever from the MPEG-LA). In both these cases, the part of the cost price attributable to paying for the H.264 licence is negligibly small, or in other words, if H.264 were completely free, it wouldn't save you any money.
Obviously for you, free trumps everything, even if the other thing is so cheap it's effectively free anyway. I'd rather pay a negligibly small amount of money for quality, than have shit for free.
Yes, it's exactly an open web which is the issue here. H264 is incompatible with an open web.
H.264 has nothing to do with an open web. Ask Vint Cerf what an open web is, he'll tell you it's a standard anyone can code to. Even if you want to charge for your code, that's OK.
The rest of the post is irrelevant posturing on an anti-patnet/anti-Apple stance. It's also completely incorrect on why there isn't a single codec called out for video. But we have been over that before and you keep espousing the false anti-Apple version. Hopeless troll is all you are.
you have repeatedly failed to construct a sound argument as to exactly how the end-user benefits from a codec being "open" (you mean free), rather than the codec having royalties associated with it
So what you are saying is that you do not believe in the model of the web (free, open, royalty-free, whatever you want to call it)? Because that's what you are saying. You can't imagine any way a free, open, royalty-free standard can be absolutely necessary for something to thrive.
You have repeatedly ignored the fact that there are open-source implementations of both an H.264 encoder and decoder, meaning that it is perfectly possible for Mozilla, Opera etc. to include H.264 capability without having to pay any royalties to MPEG-LA ever.
This has got nothing to do with source code. It's about licensing. It's using the techniques described in the patents covering H264 that costs money.
Obviously for you, free trumps everything
No, an open web does.
I'd rather pay a negligibly small amount of money for quality, than have shit for free.
Those are not the alternatives, but nice try.
H.264 has nothing to do with an open web. Ask Vint Cerf what an open web is, he'll tell you it's a standard anyone can code to. Even if you want to charge for your code, that's OK.
Again, it's not about source code. It's about standards. The open web is based on open, royalty-free standards. H264 is in direct violation of this basic principle.
The rest of the post is irrelevant posturing on an anti-patnet/anti-Apple stance.
No, it is just you who are unable to counter the facts at hand, so you desperately try to dodge and weave.
Again, it's not about source code. It's about standards. The open web is based on open, royalty-free standards. H264 is in direct violation of this basic principle.
No, it is just you who are unable to counter the facts at hand, so you desperately try to dodge and weave.
You're just as uninspired in thought as the "free market economists".
I'll say it again, since you seem to ignore the FACTS for your so-called "principle".
First, neither WebM nor H.264 are open standards. They are both proprietary, owned and developed by a single entity. WebM is owned and developed by Google, and H.264 is owned and developed by MPEG-LA.
Second, WebM is guaranteed to be free to end users and content providers forever. Well, not forever. It can't be free to end users OR content providers if it's destroyed in patent court. And we see here that that is a real risk, and in fact is likely to happen. Full stop.
Meanwhile, H.264 is unlikely to be killed in court. We don't have to worry about that. We as end users are also guaranteed to be able to use it for FREE... FOREVER. Period.
Content providers, however, have only been granted temporary free use of the codec (until 2014 at the earliest). There's some risk that content providers will have to pay royalties at some point in time after 2014.
Now here's the kicker.
The RISK that WebM will at some point not be free (due to being killed in patent court) is far greater than the risk that H.264 might at some point not be free (but only to developers). That makes H.264 better than. And that's not even considering performance and quality.
So you can take your principles and shove it. I prefer better performance and less risk.
Yes it does, because it [WebM] will be free forever.
This is where your argument falls flat on its face. WebM will no longer be free when it's killed in patent court, will it?
This is where your argument falls flat on its face. WebM will no longer be free when it's killed in patent court, will it?
There's no evidence whatsoever that it violates any patents. In fact, the MPEG-LA failed to find any patents, so they tried (and failed, it seems) to gather a patent pool for VP8 instead.
On2 clearly did a thorough job to avoid any patent infringements with VP8, and Google's lawyers obviously scrutinized the codec as well. In fact, Google probably owns quite a few patents that may be violated by H264!
First, neither WebM nor H.264 are open standards.
I agree completely. H264 is not open, and WebM is not a standard.
They are both proprietary, owned and developed by a single entity. WebM is owned and developed by Google, and H.264 is owned and developed by MPEG-LA.
This is wrong. WebM is owned and developed by the open-source WebM project. But that is really irrelevant, because anyone is free to take WebM, fork it, and create a new project without any input from anyone else (such as Google).
Second, WebM is guaranteed to be free to end users and content providers forever. Well, not forever. It can't be free to end users OR content providers if it's destroyed in patent court. And we see here that that is a real risk, and in fact is likely to happen. Full stop.
As we see here, no one has been able to find any infringements. The MPEG-LA eventually had to give up, and decided to call for patents for a VP8 patent pool instead. But it looks like that failed too.
You seem to ignore the fact that On2's buisness revolved around owning patents, and not infringing upon patents owned by others.
Meanwhile, H.264 is unlikely to be killed in court. We don't have to worry about that. We as end users are also guaranteed to be able to use it for FREE... FOREVER. Period.
Nope.
The RISK that WebM will at some point not be free (due to being killed in patent court) is far greater than the risk that H.264 might at some point not be free (but only to developers). That makes H.264 better than.
Wrong. The fact that H264 is closed and incompatible with an open web means that it loses by default.
Take your vague FUD and shove it. There is no evidence of any infringement.
Wrong. The fact that H264 is closed and incompatible with an open web means that it loses by default.
Again with the propaganda.
A couple months ago I listened to Vinton Cerf speak of the necessity of the open web in supporting business cases for participating companies. That vendors that brought good solutions to the web infrastructure should be economically rewarded, but that they should do so on the level playing field of open standards.
The guy that invented the internet! And the IETF who are as inclusive and as open as they get! The guy that's a Google Fellow, y'know he works as an evangelist for the company that's providing WebM, and his official company line contradicts your stance on open standards. He doesn't speak the same language as you.
Maybe you should actually try to listen to him sometime.
Meanwhile, H.264 is unlikely to be killed in court. We don't have to worry about that. We as end users are also guaranteed to be able to use it for FREE... FOREVER. Period.
Nope.
Care to elaborate?
Also, you seem to know more about On2's business than is available to the general public. Do you care to elaborate on that connection?
There's no consensus whatsoever that WebM is safe from patent challenges. Word on the street has long said otherwise.
You really sound like someone who has lost the argument, who has more riding on this than principle, who is trying to obfuscate to save your efforts to misinform.
Again with the propaganda.
It's a simple fact. H264 is closed. Closed technologies can never become part of any open web standard.
A couple months ago I listened to Vinton Cerf speak of the necessity of the open web in supporting business cases for participating companies. That vendors that brought good solutions to the web infrastructure should be economically rewarded, but that they should do so on the level playing field of open standards.
It's too bad, then, that H264 is not an open standard.
Care to elaborate?
The MPEG-LA is an industry cartel which can set the price to whatever suits them. If they manage to kill off WebM, there will be no reason not to screw everyone up the backside.
Also, you seem to know more about On2's business than is available to the general public. Do you care to elaborate on that connection?
I don't know more about On2's business than anyone who isn't completely clueless. On2's business model revolved around selling video technology. It goes without saying that they needed to be careful to avoid infringing on patents, knowing about cartels like MPEG-LA and their eagerness to use any means necessary to kill off competition.
There's no consensus whatsoever that WebM is safe from patent challenges. Word on the street has long said otherwise.
Even the x264 guy showed how On2 took specific measures to avoid patents related to H264. In addition to that, there's Google's army of lawyers. Two companies have investigated patents, and found that VP8 did not violate any.
Furthermore, the MPEG-LA has failed to produce any specific examples, and eventually had to give up. Their last desperate attempt was to set up a patent pool to get other people to come forward with patents that On2 and Google may have missed.
The patent pool seems to have been a failure as well.
And you have once again failed to address my points.
Even the x264 guy showed how On2 took specific measures to avoid patents related to H264. In addition to that, there's Google's army of lawyers. Two companies have investigated patents, and found that VP8 did not violate any.
Furthermore, the MPEG-LA has failed to produce any specific examples, and eventually had to give up. Their last desperate attempt was to set up a patent pool to get other people to come forward with patents that On2 and Google may have missed.
The patent pool seems to have been a failure as well.
And you have once again failed to address my points.
More made-up, non-established insike-fact. You are persistent in creating your own personal reality. How could anyone address untruth other than to call it so?
It's a simple fact. H264 is closed. Closed technologies can never become part of any open web standard.
That's a bald faced lie. An open standard supports multiple complying implementations whether they are open or closed. That's the whole and only point.
It's too bad, then, that H264 is not an open standard.
No, the only thing that's too bad is your displayed incompetence when it comes to talking about open standards. It's so consistently wrong that:
Flat out, I an calling you a lying shill.
A disingenuous troll.
Your long and continued track record of ignoring the actual W3C, IEEE, ISO and industry-wide accepted definitions and practices can only indicate you have no intention of playing truthfully.
The MPEG-LA is an industry cartel which can set the price to whatever suits them. If they manage to kill off WebM, there will be no reason not to screw everyone up the backside.
Anyone who's not completely clueless or completely dishonest knows that's not true. Price to end users for any internet video encoded with H.264 is free. Forever. We know that. You know that. Now be honest about it.
It costs too much to sue Google. It's much easier to sue their associates.
Exactly. Apple has more lawyers then anybody, but bullies usually pick on the small and weak, while leaving alone anybody who might stand up to them effectively.