And now the codec-war has really begun with both Apple and Microsoft pushing hard for H.264 and trying to mask it with their 'engagement in HTML5' and 'aiming for an Open web', both of which have nothing to do with this, especially not when H.264 comes into play. When Hugo Roy of the Free Software Foundation Europe reminds Steve Jobs of what 'Open' means the response of Steve leaves no question on what it essentially is all about:
All video codecs are covered by patents. A patent pool is being assembled to go after Theora and other “open source” codecs now. Unfortunately, just because something is open source, it doesn’t mean or guarantee that it doesn’t infringe on others patents. An open standard is different from being royalty free or open source.
So 'Open' in Apple terms just means that the specification of some technology is available to everyone. This contradicts Steve's claim about Adobe's Flash not being 'Open' - Flash is an 'open standard' (by Steve's definition) after all...
But more importantly this response from Steve, combined with the statement from Microsoft in their blog post:
Other codecs often come up in these discussions. The distinction between the availability of source code and the ownership of the intellectual property in that available source code is critical. Today, intellectual property rights for H.264 are broadly available through a well-defined program managed by MPEG LA. The rights to other codecs are often less clear, as has been described in the press. Of course, developers can rely on the H.264 codec and hardware acceleration support of the underlying operating system, like Windows 7, without paying any additional royalty.
paints the whole picture: Apple and Microsoft are after dominance when it comes to video on the web through their mutual contributions to the patent-pool of MPEG-LA that covers the H.264 codec.
Indeed the 'rights to other codecs' may be less clear, but that is something that is (still) not proven yet and may be equally applicable to H.264 itself. Even then it is a question if some applicable patents aren't overly broad, too obvious or with 'prior art' that may invalidate them. All of this has to be determined and will probably take many years.