Video format wars

This war is going to spawn another group of fanboys :/
 
HavocXphere said:
Thats not a problem, its an advantage in this case. We need a royalty free standardized codec. If they license it as the OSI wants then we'll get multiple forked implementations that aren't compatible & then the entire plan is FUBAR. Better that Google keeps all the reins in its (mostly) trustworthy hands for now. Once the format is widely used & everyone knows wtf is going on then it can be licensed more openly.
Click to expand...

I guess we'll have to wait and see what Google's intentions are. I still think they should move quickly with a WebM license pool to pre-empt any MPEG LA maneuvering. It's public record that MPEG LA have intentions in that regard (http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/...-webm-video-may-not-be-royalty-free-for-long/). Maybe I just have less faith in the mutually.assured.destruction.by.lawyers argument.
 
Don King would have loved this one- a heavy weight bout indeed
 
So according to the MPEG LA using VP8 opens you up to patent liability as there is no indemnification. Well guess what, If you licence H264 you have no assurances that you are covered by all patents either.

See: http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/FAQ.aspx

Q: Are all AVC essential patents included?
A: No assurance is or can be made that the License includes every essential patent. The purpose of the License is to offer a convenient licensing alternative to everyone on the same terms and to include as much essential intellectual property as possible for their convenience. Participation in the License is voluntary on the part of essential patent holders, however.
Click to expand...

So it's the pot calling the kettle black really, and now pot seems to think he owns kettle's coffee and is going to licence it appropriately.

Best of luck to the MPEG LA, this is Google.. not small-fry.
 
Last edited:
AnimateX said:
So according to the MPEG LA using VP8 opens you up to patent liability as there is no indemnification. Well guess what, If you licence H264 you have no assurances that you are covered by all patents either.
Click to expand...

Same tactic MS used wrt Linux and Novell signing with the Devil. It's scare mongering and extortion. I fscking hate software patents.
 
ponder said:
Same tactic MS used wrt Linux and Novell signing with the Devil. It's scare mongering and extortion. I fscking hate software patents.
Click to expand...

Yes, MS has never disclosed the patents because fear is much more effective than possibly exposing any patents that could be invalidated.

I still remember when SCO started selling licenses for Linux all those years ago claiming they owned everything UNIX. They then took on Big Blue (IBM) alleging that IBM put UNIX code into Linux, well how well did that work out for them? SCO is barely staving off liquidation in a lengthy multi-pronged court battle it is losing and it has come to light that Novell still has rights to UNIX which they never sold.

So this going to be fascinating to watch. MPEG LA should be very careful on this one, I'm sure they would like to keep the patents that VP8 is supposedly violating secret and not have "Big Industry" go scratching through them. And boy, is Google good at scratching.
 
Microsoft got it wrong with HD DVD vs Blu Ray and Apple is still trying to find out what a Blu Ray player is.

:love: I love Google. :love:

*So what was your best score with the Pacman game Google put on their search page for the weekend? :)
 
In this fight I think I will back Google. Everything is going the way of the web, Google of course knows this, and that is one area where MS definitely is no where near as dominant as Google!!!!
 
HavocXphere said:
MPEG LA just got hit with an antitrust case:
http://www.osnews.com/story/23346/Nero_Files_Antitrust_Case_Against_MPEG-LA
[/url]
Click to expand...

The German technology company claims the licensing body has abused its monopoly power, and that is has not honoured agreements made with the US Department of Justice. There's some juicy stuff in here.
Click to expand...

Heh, Nero is not the first company I'd have expected to do this. Screw the popcorn, where did I put the ghostpops :D.
 
In the end the patent lawsuits and the fighting will mean nothing, it is the users who will decide which way this plays out.
People do not care for patent suits and royalties, the FaceBook dilemma and IE6 should have proved this by now, they just want to carry on with their online activities as seamlessly as possible.

If you cannot upload your YouTube video any more then there is a need to use the Google product, it will be free and hopefully painless to use, and lets face it, a staggering amount video recorded around the world daily is solely for YouTube.

Unless MS and Apple can create a need for their codec then this war is already lost to them I'm afraid.
 
MyWorld said:
In the end the patent lawsuits and the fighting will mean nothing, it is the users who will decide which way this plays out.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree, the user uses what they are given. If the defacto standard for Youtube is VP8 the users will use that, if it's H.264 they will use that seeing that is what Youtube pushes out.

Would be great if we could get all the hacks/pirates to use VP8 in their dvd/bluray rips. It will do for the internet video format what the porn industry did for VHS :D
 
ponder said:
I have to disagree, the user uses what they are given.
Click to expand...
+1. e.g. Adobe decided they are cool with the VP8 legal situation & intend to push it out via flash. Thats a billion extra VP8 capable devices overnight due to a legal call on adobe's part. The end user might not care about the legal stuff but it has a huge influence on the outcome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X