Posted on May 25, 2010 by Simon Phipps
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!)
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.
If you wondered why end users, and not just developers, need protection from MPEG-LA’s patent pool, read this and discover that your publication of H.264 video on your web site might mean you owe MPEG-LA $100,000. We really do need an alternative, safe patent pool with a $0 charge for those promoting freedom instead of fees.
So Sun’s secrets were gifted to an insider trader as pillow talk? Great, that makes it so much better. Can’t say I instantly feel “Moffat is the least culpable person charged” on that basis.
Filed under: Links Tagged: | WebM