The point is that Google has released WebM to the world for free, and will not demand royalties for VP8 patents. Google has also said that there are no known patent violations in VP8, and no one has brought forth any patent claims either.
Google says there are "no know patent violations in VP8" because nobody there has looked. Looking would put them even more in the firing line for WILFUL/DELIBRATE infrigement. Thereby hurting Google more.
The fact they aren't prepared to offer any protection to companies who use WebM, just goes to show how sure of themselves they are (i.e. not in the slightest).
All Google has done is stated facts. But reading between the lines, what they are saying is:
There are no known patent violations in VP8 because we haven't looked to know.
No one has brought forth any patent claims either...yet!
Are you suggesting that the <video> tag should work only for Mac OS X or Windows 7 users?
What he meant (and what looks as the most intelligent solution to me as well) is that if a browser can't pay for the license, it should use libraries already available on the operating system where it's installed.
What he meant (and what looks as the most intelligent solution to me as well) is that if a browser can't pay for the license, it should use libraries already available on the operating system where it's installed.
As Safari is doing, for example.
There are other systems supported by Firefox, Opera, Chrome and Chromium that don't have H.264 available because it is not royalty-free. That's exactly why H.264 can't be a standard according to W3C definition.
It wouldn't hurt for Apple or Microsoft to include at least one royalty-free codec, which looks as the most intelligent solution to me as it would make the <video> tag truly universal.
What he meant (and what looks as the most intelligent solution to me as well) is that if a browser can't pay for the license, it should use libraries already available on the operating system where it's installed.
As Safari is doing, for example.
Exactly. Mozilla's stance is a little crazy in this respect.
Windows 7, Linux and OS X all have these libraries. Why not just link to them, although I can see it being slightly more work on Mozilla's part to implement the wrapper.
There are other systems supported by Firefox, Opera, Chrome and Chromium that don't have H.264 available because it is not royalty-free. That's exactly why H.264 can't be a standard according to W3C definition.
It wouldn't hurt for Apple or Microsoft to include at least one royalty-free codec, which looks as the most intelligent solution to me as it would make the <video> tag truly universal.
Still doesn't change the fact the H.264 IS an open standard now does it?
Yes it does because the subject of this whole discussion is the <video> tag defined by open web standards, and these standards are defined by the W3C. H.264 can't be an open web standard because it is not royalty-free. Firefox, Opera and Chrome are just leading the path for an open web.
Yes it does because the subject of this whole discussion is the <video> tag defined by open web standards, and these standards are defined by the W3C. H.264 can't be an open web standard because it is not royalty-free. Firefox, Opera and Chrome are just leading the path for an open web.
The W3C did NOT even define HTML5!
If we had followed the W3C from the beginning, now we would not be discussing about this... We would be enjoying XHTML2 and the fact that every element can become an hyperlink (woooow!!!)...
You know that there are open source operating systems that are not from Apple or Microsoft. I don't need to name them.
This whole discussion is about open web standards, which exist exactly to not favor one company or another. H.264, as it is, can't be accepted as an open web standard.
You can't blame Firefox, Opera, Chrome or Chromium for not relying on a proprietary technology for videos. They are just doing The Right Thing (tm). This is about the future.
You know that there are open source operating systems that are not from Apple or Microsoft. I don't need to name them.
I know there are other operating systems.
I know there's Linux, but I also do know that Linux supports H264 (via x264 open source coded). It's just not preinstalled by some distros, but you can find it in the repos of almost any distro. Or you can install it from source. This happens with MP3 too!
Idem for BSD.
What other open source operating systems are being used then? At least, by end users?
Well, HTML5 didn't define a standard codec for videos because they couldn't choose a proprietary one. This brings us back to the discussion: isn't it easier to just stick with a royalty-free fallback that everybody can implement and ship?
Nobody is asking Apple and Microsoft to not support H.264 in their browsers or operating systems. They can, as long as they also support a standard codec for videos that will be also available in other browsers and platforms independently of the company being able to afford the current and specially the future royalty fees.
How does dropping H264 help with standardizing video on the web?
This another direct attack by Google at Apple. First they invade Apple's space with Android and now this. Apple should send out a clear message and buy Yahoo!
Well, HTML5 didn't define a standard codec for videos because they couldn't choose a proprietary one. This brings us back to the discussion: isn't it easier to just stick a royalty-free fallback that everybody can implement?
That's not what I meant.
HTML5, referring to the *full* standard (<video> and <audio>, but also Geolocation, Drag and Drop, WebSockets, etc etc etc) was not defined by W3C!
If you read the story of HTML5 you see that the original draft was proposed by "WHATWG", a group formed by Apple, Mozilla and Opera. The W3C instead wanted XHTML2, which included none of the things above (the biggest change in XHML2 is that every element can have a "href" attribute... what a big change! \ )
This is a topic well worthy of discussion and Google undoubtedly deserve criticism but I can't help but feel the tone of this is a little over the top, borderline libellous. Some of the statements seem very sweeping and almost like a personal attack on Google as if it were a personage.
That said, I liked it! But I wouldn't want to be on the end of a phone call from a Google lawyer.
I feel more annoyed and irritated with Google for this WebM nonsense than worried that it might succeed in its aims. I just cannot see H.264 being displaced by anything soon. Perhaps H.265 as it has such stakeholders behind it, but ultimately H.264 gets the job done well and is ubiquitous. When Google takes out support for H.264 (which it has every right to do if it doesn't want to incur fees, however easily it could pay them), people won't start using WebM, they'll just install a plugin for H.264.
"Welcome to my site, your browser doesn't appear to support H.264 video. Please download an H.264 codec or use another browser such as Internet Explorer or Safari." - copy and paste, job done!
Interestingly, On2 Technologies, Inc. is listed as a licensee of H.264/AVC, so this will definitely take the sting out of any "clean room" defence Google may try and present.
While most of what you wrote is correct, I want to point out that 'clean room' development is NOT a defense in patent issues. It only applies in copyright cases. So Google can't use that defense, anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
YouTube is a monopoly based on what? Youtube is about 43% of number of videos viewed. That's the weakest monopoly I've ever seen (sarcasm).
Not at all. Did you miss all the people (including Google) complaining that Apple had a monopoly - when the iPhone was only about 15% of smartphones and 2% of cell phones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by geezmo
.
Differently from Flash, H.264 is not ubiquitous on the web, and it is not free.
H.264 is not ubiquitous? Are you delusional or just uninformed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by geezmo
Will Apple or Microsoft volunteer to pay H.264 royalties for Mozilla during a lifetime, so that Firefox can bundle H.264? Otherwise, 30% of the web users that use Firefox won't have H.264 natively in their browsers. If they don't volunteer, we won't ever be able to use the <video> tag, and we will have to continue relying on Flash...
That's not true at all. If Mozilla simply uses the libraries already available in Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux, then no additional royalties will be due.
Quote:
Originally Posted by geezmo
Exactly. Besides being royalty-free which should attract more supporters, WebM is going to have a huge lead in terms of video for the web, exactly because IE9 won't be ready until 2012, while 90% of Chrome users and 80% of Firefox users use the latest versions, versus 70% for Safari and 60% for Internet Explorer:
That's a loony position - even for someone who pretends that h.264 is not ubiquitous.
As of today, EVERY browser can play h.264. Only a small percentage can play WebM. Even when the next version of Chrome comes out, less than 10% of the browsers in use will play WebM while 90% (all but Chrome) will play H.264 natively. And even the remaining 10% can play H.264 in a Flash wrapper.
Just how in the world does that suggest that WebM has a huge lead?
And that doesn't even get into the quality and performance issues where WebM is severely lacking.
but ultimately H.264 gets the job done well and is ubiquitous.
It is not ubiquitous on the web. That is why the majority of videos are still served using Flash. The <video> tag is not so widespread and Mozilla, Opera and, now, Google, want to avoid a non-free codec to become the standard for the <video> tag.
The whole point of supporting WebM or any other royalty-free codec is to avoid a proprietary codec to become ubiquitous on the web.
It makes no sense to me to see anti-Flash proponents to bash WebM or any other royalty-free codecs, because supporting them is avoiding the creation of a new situation like Flash: an ubiquitous proprietary technology that will become harder and harder to avoid.
Have you seen the list of patents contributed to the AVC/H.264 open standard? It's a 70-page A4 document
The patent pool is also international. So Google would be starting up one hell of a shit storm, that even they couldn't remain unaffected by.
There isn't a chance in hell that WebM does NOT infringe on some of these patents. Patent holders, with number of granted patent filings contributed (some patents are protected in multiple countries) in brackets, are:
Apple Inc. (4 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
Cisco Systems Canada IP Holdings Company (4 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York (9 patent filings(s) in 6 countries)
DAEWOO Electronics Corporation (2 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation (10 patent filings(s) in 6 countries)
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (4 patent filings(s) in 3 countries)
France Télécom, société anonyme (7 patent filings(s) in 7 countries)
Fraunhofer‐Gesellschaft zur Foerderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. (86 patent filings(s) in 28 countries)
Fujitsu Limited (18 patent filings(s) in 5 countries)
Hewlett‐Packard Company (1 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
Hitachi, Ltd. (4 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (42 patent filings(s) in 18 countries)
LG Electronics Inc. (386 patent filings(s) in 38 countries)
Microsoft Corporation (116 patent filings(s) in 23 countries)
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation (26 patent filings(s) in 8 countries)
Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation (2 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
NTT DOCOMO, INC. (15 patent filings(s) in 5 countries)
Panasonic Corporation (574 patent filings(s) in 41 countries)
Robert Bosch GmbH (5 patent filings(s) in 5 countries)
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (60 patent filings(s) in 12 countries)
Sedna Patent Services, LLC (1 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
Sharp Corporation (87 patent filings(s) in 19 countries)
Siemens AG (5 patent filings(s) in 4 countries)
Sony Corporation (34 patent filings(s) in 12 countries)
Tandberg Telecom AS (1 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (5 patent filings(s) in 5 countries)
Toshiba Corporation (272 patent filings(s) in 6 countries)
Victor Company of Japan, Limited (5 patent filings(s) in 2 countries)
49 countries are involved in this patent portfolio, so it's not exactly going to be easy for Google or others sweep the whole patent issue under the carpet.
Interestingly, On2 Technologies, Inc. is listed as a licensee of H.264/AVC, so this will definitely take the sting out of any "clean room" defence Google may try and present.
It's also rather interesting that most of the patents are owned by Far Eastern Companies, the same ones who are making Android handsets. I doubt Google will want to piss them off too much either.
That is the advantage of forming the patent pool first. I think the wolves... um.. I mean lawyers... are just waiting for the first commercial product to implement Web M so they can sink their teeth in them.
Even when the next version of Chrome comes out, less than 10% of the browsers in use will play WebM while 90% (all but Chrome) will play H.264 natively. And even the remaining 10% can play H.264 in a Flash wrapper.
Wrong. Firefox, Chrome and Opera will have almost 50% of the market supporting WebM in the <video> tag. Internet Explorer 8 still doesn't support H.264 in the <video> tag, and this will happen only in IE9, to be released only in 2012.
This means that Safari with its 5% of share will be alone supporting H.264 in the <video> tag, until IE9 arrives. By then, more than 50% of the web browsers will have native WebM and Ogg Theora support in the <video> tag. Then <video> on the web will be the Apple-Microsoft alliance against everybody else.
Comments
The point is that Google has released WebM to the world for free, and will not demand royalties for VP8 patents. Google has also said that there are no known patent violations in VP8, and no one has brought forth any patent claims either.
Google says there are "no know patent violations in VP8" because nobody there has looked. Looking would put them even more in the firing line for WILFUL/DELIBRATE infrigement. Thereby hurting Google more.
The fact they aren't prepared to offer any protection to companies who use WebM, just goes to show how sure of themselves they are (i.e. not in the slightest).
All Google has done is stated facts. But reading between the lines, what they are saying is:
If that were truly the case then they would be supporting H.264 which is an OPEN STANDARD from ISO?!?
It can't be an open standard for the W3C, because it is not royalty-free. This was said already.
Mac OS X and Windows 7 both have H.264 decoding in the operating system libraries. Any program, including Mozilla can use these functions.
Are you suggesting that the <video> tag should work only for Mac OS X or Windows 7 users?
Are you suggesting that the <video> tag should work only for Mac OS X or Windows 7 users?
What he meant (and what looks as the most intelligent solution to me as well) is that if a browser can't pay for the license, it should use libraries already available on the operating system where it's installed.
As Safari is doing, for example.
It can't be an open standard for the W3C, because it is not royalty-free. This was said already.
Still doesn't change the fact the H.264 IS an open standard now does it?
Both Goole and WebM's proponents like to twist the meanings so that this fact is lost.
What he meant (and what looks as the most intelligent solution to me as well) is that if a browser can't pay for the license, it should use libraries already available on the operating system where it's installed.
As Safari is doing, for example.
There are other systems supported by Firefox, Opera, Chrome and Chromium that don't have H.264 available because it is not royalty-free. That's exactly why H.264 can't be a standard according to W3C definition.
It wouldn't hurt for Apple or Microsoft to include at least one royalty-free codec, which looks as the most intelligent solution to me as it would make the <video> tag truly universal.
What he meant (and what looks as the most intelligent solution to me as well) is that if a browser can't pay for the license, it should use libraries already available on the operating system where it's installed.
As Safari is doing, for example.
Exactly. Mozilla's stance is a little crazy in this respect.
Windows 7, Linux and OS X all have these libraries. Why not just link to them, although I can see it being slightly more work on Mozilla's part to implement the wrapper.
There are other systems supported by Firefox, Opera, Chrome and Chromium that don't have H.264 available because it is not royalty-free. That's exactly why H.264 can't be a standard according to W3C definition.
It wouldn't hurt for Apple or Microsoft to include at least one royalty-free codec, which looks as the most intelligent solution to me as it would make the <video> tag truly universal.
What systems?
Still doesn't change the fact the H.264 IS an open standard now does it?
Yes it does because the subject of this whole discussion is the <video> tag defined by open web standards, and these standards are defined by the W3C. H.264 can't be an open web standard because it is not royalty-free. Firefox, Opera and Chrome are just leading the path for an open web.
Yes it does because the subject of this whole discussion is the <video> tag defined by open web standards, and these standards are defined by the W3C. H.264 can't be an open web standard because it is not royalty-free. Firefox, Opera and Chrome are just leading the path for an open web.
The W3C did NOT even define HTML5!
If we had followed the W3C from the beginning, now we would not be discussing about this... We would be enjoying XHTML2 and the fact that every element can become an hyperlink (woooow!!!)...
What systems?
You know that there are open source operating systems that are not from Apple or Microsoft. I don't need to name them.
This whole discussion is about open web standards, which exist exactly to not favor one company or another. H.264, as it is, can't be accepted as an open web standard.
You can't blame Firefox, Opera, Chrome or Chromium for not relying on a proprietary technology for videos. They are just doing The Right Thing (tm). This is about the future.
You know that there are open source operating systems that are not from Apple or Microsoft. I don't need to name them.
I know there are other operating systems.
I know there's Linux, but I also do know that Linux supports H264 (via x264 open source coded). It's just not preinstalled by some distros, but you can find it in the repos of almost any distro. Or you can install it from source. This happens with MP3 too!
Idem for BSD.
What other open source operating systems are being used then? At least, by end users?
The W3C did NOT even define HTML5!
Well, HTML5 didn't define a standard codec for videos because they couldn't choose a proprietary one. This brings us back to the discussion: isn't it easier to just stick with a royalty-free fallback that everybody can implement and ship?
Nobody is asking Apple and Microsoft to not support H.264 in their browsers or operating systems. They can, as long as they also support a standard codec for videos that will be also available in other browsers and platforms independently of the company being able to afford the current and specially the future royalty fees.
This another direct attack by Google at Apple. First they invade Apple's space with Android and now this. Apple should send out a clear message and buy Yahoo!
Well, HTML5 didn't define a standard codec for videos because they couldn't choose a proprietary one. This brings us back to the discussion: isn't it easier to just stick a royalty-free fallback that everybody can implement?
That's not what I meant.
HTML5, referring to the *full* standard (<video> and <audio>, but also Geolocation, Drag and Drop, WebSockets, etc etc etc) was not defined by W3C!
If you read the story of HTML5 you see that the original draft was proposed by "WHATWG", a group formed by Apple, Mozilla and Opera. The W3C instead wanted XHTML2, which included none of the things above (the biggest change in XHML2 is that every element can have a "href" attribute... what a big change!
That said, I liked it! But I wouldn't want to be on the end of a phone call from a Google lawyer.
I feel more annoyed and irritated with Google for this WebM nonsense than worried that it might succeed in its aims. I just cannot see H.264 being displaced by anything soon. Perhaps H.265 as it has such stakeholders behind it, but ultimately H.264 gets the job done well and is ubiquitous. When Google takes out support for H.264 (which it has every right to do if it doesn't want to incur fees, however easily it could pay them), people won't start using WebM, they'll just install a plugin for H.264.
"Welcome to my site, your browser doesn't appear to support H.264 video. Please download an H.264 codec or use another browser such as Internet Explorer or Safari." - copy and paste, job done!
Interestingly, On2 Technologies, Inc. is listed as a licensee of H.264/AVC, so this will definitely take the sting out of any "clean room" defence Google may try and present.
While most of what you wrote is correct, I want to point out that 'clean room' development is NOT a defense in patent issues. It only applies in copyright cases. So Google can't use that defense, anyway.
YouTube is a monopoly based on what? Youtube is about 43% of number of videos viewed. That's the weakest monopoly I've ever seen (sarcasm).
Not at all. Did you miss all the people (including Google) complaining that Apple had a monopoly - when the iPhone was only about 15% of smartphones and 2% of cell phones?
.
Differently from Flash, H.264 is not ubiquitous on the web, and it is not free.
H.264 is not ubiquitous? Are you delusional or just uninformed?
Will Apple or Microsoft volunteer to pay H.264 royalties for Mozilla during a lifetime, so that Firefox can bundle H.264? Otherwise, 30% of the web users that use Firefox won't have H.264 natively in their browsers. If they don't volunteer, we won't ever be able to use the <video> tag, and we will have to continue relying on Flash...
That's not true at all. If Mozilla simply uses the libraries already available in Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux, then no additional royalties will be due.
Exactly. Besides being royalty-free which should attract more supporters, WebM is going to have a huge lead in terms of video for the web, exactly because IE9 won't be ready until 2012, while 90% of Chrome users and 80% of Firefox users use the latest versions, versus 70% for Safari and 60% for Internet Explorer:
That's a loony position - even for someone who pretends that h.264 is not ubiquitous.
As of today, EVERY browser can play h.264. Only a small percentage can play WebM. Even when the next version of Chrome comes out, less than 10% of the browsers in use will play WebM while 90% (all but Chrome) will play H.264 natively. And even the remaining 10% can play H.264 in a Flash wrapper.
Just how in the world does that suggest that WebM has a huge lead?
And that doesn't even get into the quality and performance issues where WebM is severely lacking.
but ultimately H.264 gets the job done well and is ubiquitous.
It is not ubiquitous on the web. That is why the majority of videos are still served using Flash. The <video> tag is not so widespread and Mozilla, Opera and, now, Google, want to avoid a non-free codec to become the standard for the <video> tag.
The whole point of supporting WebM or any other royalty-free codec is to avoid a proprietary codec to become ubiquitous on the web.
It makes no sense to me to see anti-Flash proponents to bash WebM or any other royalty-free codecs, because supporting them is avoiding the creation of a new situation like Flash: an ubiquitous proprietary technology that will become harder and harder to avoid.
Have you seen the list of patents contributed to the AVC/H.264 open standard? It's a 70-page A4 document
The patent pool is also international. So Google would be starting up one hell of a shit storm, that even they couldn't remain unaffected by.
There isn't a chance in hell that WebM does NOT infringe on some of these patents. Patent holders, with number of granted patent filings contributed (some patents are protected in multiple countries) in brackets, are:
- Apple Inc. (4 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
- Cisco Systems Canada IP Holdings Company (4 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
- The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York (9 patent filings(s) in 6 countries)
- DAEWOO Electronics Corporation (2 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
- Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation (10 patent filings(s) in 6 countries)
- Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (4 patent filings(s) in 3 countries)
- France Télécom, société anonyme (7 patent filings(s) in 7 countries)
- Fraunhofer‐Gesellschaft zur Foerderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. (86 patent filings(s) in 28 countries)
- Fujitsu Limited (18 patent filings(s) in 5 countries)
- Hewlett‐Packard Company (1 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
- Hitachi, Ltd. (4 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
- Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (42 patent filings(s) in 18 countries)
- LG Electronics Inc. (386 patent filings(s) in 38 countries)
- Microsoft Corporation (116 patent filings(s) in 23 countries)
- Mitsubishi Electric Corporation (26 patent filings(s) in 8 countries)
- Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation (2 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
- NTT DOCOMO, INC. (15 patent filings(s) in 5 countries)
- Panasonic Corporation (574 patent filings(s) in 41 countries)
- Robert Bosch GmbH (5 patent filings(s) in 5 countries)
- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (60 patent filings(s) in 12 countries)
- Sedna Patent Services, LLC (1 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
- Sharp Corporation (87 patent filings(s) in 19 countries)
- Siemens AG (5 patent filings(s) in 4 countries)
- Sony Corporation (34 patent filings(s) in 12 countries)
- Tandberg Telecom AS (1 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
- Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (5 patent filings(s) in 5 countries)
- Toshiba Corporation (272 patent filings(s) in 6 countries)
- Victor Company of Japan, Limited (5 patent filings(s) in 2 countries)
49 countries are involved in this patent portfolio, so it's not exactly going to be easy for Google or others sweep the whole patent issue under the carpet.Interestingly, On2 Technologies, Inc. is listed as a licensee of H.264/AVC, so this will definitely take the sting out of any "clean room" defence Google may try and present.
It's also rather interesting that most of the patents are owned by Far Eastern Companies, the same ones who are making Android handsets. I doubt Google will want to piss them off too much either.
That is the advantage of forming the patent pool first. I think the wolves... um.. I mean lawyers... are just waiting for the first commercial product to implement Web M so they can sink their teeth in them.
Even when the next version of Chrome comes out, less than 10% of the browsers in use will play WebM while 90% (all but Chrome) will play H.264 natively. And even the remaining 10% can play H.264 in a Flash wrapper.
Wrong. Firefox, Chrome and Opera will have almost 50% of the market supporting WebM in the <video> tag. Internet Explorer 8 still doesn't support H.264 in the <video> tag, and this will happen only in IE9, to be released only in 2012.
This means that Safari with its 5% of share will be alone supporting H.264 in the <video> tag, until IE9 arrives. By then, more than 50% of the web browsers will have native WebM and Ogg Theora support in the <video> tag. Then <video> on the web will be the Apple-Microsoft alliance against everybody else.