I think it's obvious why thy did this. They don't want Google's open source WebM codec to become the norm so they're going to push even harder for h.264.
The whole Internet is better off in the end if it's built only on open source and free stuff.
The whole Internet is better off in the end if it's built only on open source and free stuff.
What big player that sells H264 is not on the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG_LA#H.264.2FMPEG-4_AVC_Lice...?
Also, MPEG-LA does have costs to pay.
I guess that, for most of the companies on that list, it is a 'pay a bit to prevent legal troubles' scenario, where 'a bit' is a couple of millions. Some of that they will get back when MPEG-LA gets disbanded.
H.264 will play in both flash and the browser. It's a standard codec that is used in most workflows already. On top of that, MPEG-LA has announced it will always be royalty free for video that is free to end users (http://www.macworld.com/article/153692/2010/08/h264_royaltie...).
There's no reason for Firefox and Opera to not pick up H.264. It is the only choice that makes sense if HTML5 video is going to take off, and they are holding the web back. Thumbs up to Microsoft for actually trying to push us forward this time.
The argument that there may be lurking patent issues in WebM doesn't carry a lot of weight, I think, unless they are actually demonstrated. After all, couldn't you say that about absolutely any software?
"With regard to patents, VP8 copies too much from H.264 for comfort, no matter whose word is behind the claim of being patent-free. This doesn’t mean that it’s sure to be covered by patents, but until Google can give us evidence as to why it isn’t, I would be cautious."
I'm not at all convinced WebM doesn't have patent issues, but I'm certainly not going to assume it does have patent issues because someone said it might have patent issues.
Also, for what it's worth, the burden of proof is not on Google, that's not how patents work.
Nope. Personally I would wait until it's too late for the major players to back out before I make a patent claim. There's no 'statute of limitations' on patent claims. Laches may make things a tad more difficult but holding off until the actual specification is in use would probably hold up.
I'm not at all convinced WebM doesn't have patent issues, but I'm certainly not going to assume it does have patent issues because someone said it might have patent issues.
As Jason said in his article (and he's probably in one of the best positions to judge technical ingenuity in this area), it's very likely that it does have patent issues. That's not someone saying it might have patent issues, that's someone saying it probably does.
Also, for what it's worth, the burden of proof is not on Google, that's not how patents work.
In court. We're not in court. The claim is being made that we should use WebM mostly because it isn't patent encumbered (certainly not for technical reasons). This is a claim that Google should defend. Without support for this statement there's no reason to use WebM instead of H264.
There are other restrictions that I am surely missing, but the point is that MF licensing H.264 is not a feasible solution for such a shining example of free and open source software projects.
All of the Firefox users running Ubuntu or Debian, for a start, even if they don't realize that they're using a downstream release of Firefox, which probably encompasses millions of users already...
Well now that you put it that way, it's obvious; Mozilla should definitely ignore those pesky licensing problems in order to support a predatory cartel in gaining a global monopoly over video on the web.
Also, I hear ground up babies make excellent fertiliser.
Thus, no, it's not obvious.