6 ms·

Is there a reason that MPEG-LA isn't offering patent indemnification other than they aren't sure H.264 is patent free either? http://news.ycombinator.net/item?

• rbarooah 16y ago
  Google claims WebM is patent free. MPEG-LA doesn't claim H.264 is patent free - they just offer a simplified way to license a large number of patents. If it is FUD, perhaps you can offer an explanation rather than just deflection.
  • nullc 16y ago
    Whats the point of paying for MPEG-LA's license for AVC if doing so doesn't actually make the format legal to use? Both sides are saying (if not expressly then implied) that their licensing technique is believed to be enough, but they can't promise absolute protection.
    • rbarooah 16y ago
      The point of paying for the license is that you get the right to use all of the patents in the collection in one step rather than having to negotiate more than a thousand separate licenses. Even if you have to deal with other patents later this is still valuable. Both sides are simply not saying the same thing. You are putting words into their mouth to make it look as though the MPEG-LA is saying the same as Google. I think an unencumbered format would be a good thing, and I'm asking a genuine question. Why is Google making a claim they aren't prepared to back up? Why should other people take the risk for them? Perhaps there's a good reason for this strategy. I can't see it, so I'm asking if anyone else can? Saying "the other side is just as bad" is uninformative and just turns the discussion into a question of who's side you're on.
  • tomlin 16y ago
    WebM - free license, no guarantees of indemnification H.264 - paid license, no guarantees of indemnification Any argument that circumvents the above fact is agenda-driven. People know that WebM is the better choice; but are instead trying to find a roundabout way of keeping their H.264 encoders relevant.
    • deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
      • tomlin 16y ago
        One of the main tenets of reasoning for Flash being a proprietary blackbox is because of its all-encompassing safety net for video, other codecs. No one wanted to hear about that, because at the end of the day people were concerned with their iOS battery life. So excuse me if I, after finally abandoning Flash myself, feel this is quiet the hypocriticism of the open web movement. It again, seems like it's about battery life and very little to do with freedom of web technology. And are you claiming that Google has no agenda? It might be one you support, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. No, I entirely anticipate an agenda - but that doesn't mean it exists. My hope is that Google will do the right thing and offer indemnification. Hoping doesn't do anything, of course, but neither does propping up the MPEG LA's argument of what ifs. Google offers free services and tools of all kinds, so to single out WebM is highly agenda-driven, IMO. Disclosure: I own a MBA, PC, iPhone, iPad and work on a iMac at my office. I don't own a single Google hardware product.
        • rbarooah 16y ago
          Sorry - we crossed over - I deleted my original while you were writing this. Honestly though the points you make here don't seem to have a lot to do with the question. If Google is going to make claims that things are open, they should be held up to scrutiny. If they are not, then we simply collude with them in weakening the term. Google claims that a highly complicated piece of code that does pretty much the same thing as another highly complicated piece of code covered by 1700 patents does is patent free and safe to use. They want other people to stake their money on testing this claim. "Google offers free services and tools of all kinds, so to single out WebM is highly agenda-driven, IMO." By that argument, any discussion of individual Google products would be "agenda driven". That's absurd.