This link recently saved by webmink on January 14, 2011
This link recently saved by webmink on November 26, 2010
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.
This link recently saved by webmink on May 25, 2010
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!)
This link recently saved by webmink on May 24, 2010
This link recently saved by webmink on March 01, 2010
This link recently saved by webmink on February 08, 2010
"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...
This link recently saved by webmink on February 03, 2010
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.
This link recently saved by webmink on January 29, 2010
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.
This link recently saved by webmink on January 25, 2010
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).