Already a member? Log in

Sign up with your...

or

Sign Up with your email address

Add Tags

Duplicate Tags

Rename Tags

Share It With Others!

Save Link

Sign in

Sign Up with your email address

Sign up

By clicking the button, you agree to the Terms & Conditions.

Forgot Password?

Please enter your username below and press the send button.
A password reset link will be sent to you.

If you are unable to access the email address originally associated with your Delicious account, we recommend creating a new account.

ADVERTISEMENT

Links 1 through 10 of 11 by Simon Phipps tagged h.264

Excellent claim-by-claim takedown of the the rubbish people have been spouting against Google for deciding to omit H.264 video from Chrome's HTML5 support.

Share It With Others!

While this may indeed be a nasty case of synchronicity, the incident serves to prove how ridiculous it is for software implementation in an era of open source and open standards to be patentableThe sooner software patents are put beyond use of any corporation, the better.

Share It With Others!

Carlo demonstrates that On2 must clearly have analysed the patent context for VP8 since so many of the "sub-optimal choices" called out by H.264 partisans reflect avoidance of patented ideas. This lends weight to Google's confidence over WebM, as well as highlighting the way software patents hinder innovation (although I recently heard an advocate declare they stimulate innovation by forcing this sort of working-around; ridiculous!)

Share It With Others!

Thus making the reason WebM is a Good Thing as plain as the nose on your face, just as long as MPEG-LA can be totally shut out of taxing it.

Share It With Others!

Answer: yes, it is. That software you are using - like Final Cut Pro - does NOT include a license to distribute your end product and you need to separately pay fees to MPEG LA for anything you make with it. Very bad, very greedy.

Share It With Others!

"Flash IS open" say Adobe. Well, apart from the source being closed and unavailable, the patents on the codecs, the lack of standardisation of the format and the defensive attitude when anyone challenges it. Come on guys, get real. There are so many degrees of freedom more before anyone will respect that lame argument. Release full source and let the community plug in Theora and Vorbis, for example...

Share It With Others!

Disturbing but great post explaining how the license terms MPEG-LA force their H.264 (and MPEG-2/4) licensees to pass on in their sublicenses basically give you no useful rights to the 900 patents. This ridiculous situation has to end. No amount of "pragmatism" can excuse giving a patent pool cartel such power to shake down the whole connected population.

Share It With Others!

A long, must-read article that draws lessons from previous experiences (with GIF and MP3) to explain why anyone with concerns for liberty should discourage use of H.264 and promote alternatives. The link below is to a letter where the licensing company for H.264 even explains that they are using the drug-dealer model to minimise consumer fears via no-cost licensing while threatening implementors with aggressive legal action. I'm still 100% in agreement with Mozilla on this one.

Share It With Others!

If you are in any doubt that H.264 cannot be implemented legally as open source, take a look at this letter from MPEG-LA.

Share It With Others!

Excellent start to an explanation of Mozilla's position on H.264 and patent-encumbered CODECs. Still plenty of remaining questions, which will hopefully be addressed in part two of this explanation. Personally I think Mozilla is picking the right path and I hope we'll see Google (owner of YouTube) backing them in their promotion of technologies anyone in any country can use freely (rather than H.264 which is deviously chained to corporate profit).

Share It With Others!

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT