On 31 March 2010 02:07, Richard Watts r...@kynesim.co.uk wrote:
Given what I've seen of the utter incomprehension the computing
strategy people in general have of video, I suspect the actual reason
for resistance is some form of pure political idiocy centering on the
mobile companies
My statement was completely wrong. Nokia isn't in the H.264 pool.
Here's the full list (PDF linked from this page):
http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/PatentList.aspx
My sincere apologies to Nokia for this claim.
- d.
On 31 March 2010 08:48, Aaron Franco aa...@ngrinder.com wrote:
On 29 March 2010 00:03, Silvia Pfeiffer silviapfeiff...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 7:14 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
The catch with Vorbis is that if you support it, whoever owns the MP3
patents charges you a lot more.
(That's why I have an MP3 player that does Ogg
Forgive my ignorance, I Am Not A Lawyer, but what are the consequences
of a submarine patent on Theora and/or Vorbis? If a browser supports
it in good faith, and subsequently a troll successfully introduces a
patent challenge, would the consequence not be that the codec would
simply be dropped
Eoin Kilfeather wrote:
Forgive my ignorance, I Am Not A Lawyer,
Neither am I..
In fact a court would surely allow a reasonable time for transition.
If it's got as far as a court then it probably already cost you a
significant chunk of money.
Rob
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Eoin Kilfeather ekilfeat...@dmc.dit.ie wrote:
Forgive my ignorance, I Am Not A Lawyer, but what are the consequences
of a submarine patent on Theora and/or Vorbis? If a browser supports
it in good faith, and subsequently a troll successfully introduces a
patent
Isn't the concept of a submarine patent also possible against a
patented algorithm?
Perry
On 3/30/10 9:58 AM, Eoin Kilfeather wrote:
If a browser supports it in good faith, and subsequently a troll successfully
introduces a
patent challenge, would the consequence not be that the codec would
simply be dropped with the next maintenance release of the browser?
IANAL, but as I
On 3/30/10 11:43 AM, Perry Smith wrote:
Isn't the concept of a submarine patent also possible against a
patented algorithm?
Yes, but since Apple already ships other H.264 decoders it already has
exposure to whatever patents could come up against it. So from their
point of view, the marginal
Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 3/30/10 11:43 AM, Perry Smith wrote:
Isn't the concept of a submarine patent also possible against a
patented algorithm?
Yes, but since Apple already ships other H.264 decoders it already has
exposure to whatever patents could come up against it. So from their
point
On 29/03/2010, at 7:11 AM, Kelly Clowers wrote:
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 10:49, Ashley Sheridan a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk
wrote:
I was under the impression that Apple were one of the main opposers to using
free codecs in-place of their proprietary QuickTime.
For Theora. They haven't really
On 29 March 2010 09:41, Kit Grose k...@iqmultimedia.com.au wrote:
Apple is at heart a hardware company. My understanding of their objections to
OGG have been also largely due to a lack of hardware decoder support in their
iPods/iPhones.
No, they claimed submarine patents as their actual
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 9:06 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Aaron Franco aa...@ngrinder.com wrote:
I can see how it is counter productive in the creation of the
specification,
but the fact that such licensing is being considered for what is
2010/3/28 Sir Gallantmon (ニール・ゴンパ) ngomp...@gmail.com:
Without a baseline codec, there is no guaranteed usefulness to the audio or
video tags. As for audio, I suggest supporting at least WAV (or FLAC) and
Vorbis at least. For video, our best shot is either Dirac or Theora. Unless
somebody else
2010/3/28 Remco remc...@gmail.com:
This is what I don't understand either. It's not like H.264 won't be
successful if another baseline format is specified in the
recommendation. So, all this PR about submarine patents to scare
people away from unencumbered formats is not necessary.
This is what I don't understand either. It's not like H.264 won't be
successful if another baseline format is specified in the
It will offer a workable possibility for smaller video producers to NOT licence
H.264, and use Theora instead. This would be very counterproductive for
those with
2010/3/28 Sir Gallantmon (ニール・ゴンパ) ngomp...@gmail.com:
When the img tag was made, all browsers initially supported BMPs, didn't
they? Nobody complained about implementing support for an image format. The
GIF format made things hairy later, but with JPEG and PNG, the issues
eventually resolved
On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 10:29 -0700, Kelly Clowers wrote:
2010/3/28 Sir Gallantmon (ニール・ゴンパ) ngomp...@gmail.com:
When the img tag was made, all browsers initially supported BMPs, didn't
they? Nobody complained about implementing support for an image format. The
GIF format made things hairy
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Ashley Sheridan
a...@ashleysheridan.co.ukwrote:
On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 10:29 -0700, Kelly Clowers wrote:
2010/3/28 Sir Gallantmon (ニール・ゴンパ) ngomp...@gmail.com:
When the img tag was made, all browsers initially supported BMPs, didn't
they? Nobody
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 10:49, Ashley Sheridan a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk
wrote:
On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 10:29 -0700, Kelly Clowers wrote:
2010/3/28 Sir Gallantmon (ニール・ゴンパ) ngomp...@gmail.com:
When the img tag was made, all browsers initially supported BMPs, didn't
they? Nobody complained
On 28 March 2010 21:11, Kelly Clowers kelly.clow...@gmail.com wrote:
For Theora. They haven't really said much about Vorbis AFAIK. And I think an
audio codec is less likely to have patent issues than a video codec
(especially
since Vorbis has a lot of high profile use that should have drawn
On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 13:11 -0700, Kelly Clowers wrote:
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 10:49, Ashley Sheridan a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk
wrote:
On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 10:29 -0700, Kelly Clowers wrote:
2010/3/28 Sir Gallantmon (ニール・ゴンパ) ngomp...@gmail.com:
When the img tag was made, all
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 7:14 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 March 2010 21:11, Kelly Clowers kelly.clow...@gmail.com wrote:
For Theora. They haven't really said much about Vorbis AFAIK. And I think an
audio codec is less likely to have patent issues than a video codec
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010, Aaron Franco wrote:
Due to the proprietary nature of the H.264 codec and the expensive
licensing fees that go along with it, I propose that the MPEGLA and the
Licensors of the codec disclose the patents royalty free if the codec is
included as a part of the HTML5
Hello WHATWG,
Due to the proprietary nature of the H.264 codec and the expensive
licensing fees that go along with it, I propose that the MPEGLA and
the Licensors of the codec disclose the patents royalty free if the
codec is included as a part of the HTML5 specification. I am aware
that
I can see how it is counter productive in the creation of the
specification, but the fact that such licensing is being considered
for what is supposed to be open free is counter productive to the
advancement of web technologies. I feel we cannot allow companies like
Microsoft and Apple to
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Aaron Franco aa...@ngrinder.com wrote:
I can see how it is counter productive in the creation of the specification,
but the fact that such licensing is being considered for what is supposed to
be open free is counter productive to the advancement of web
27 matches
Mail list logo
