5 ms·

Well put. It's crazy that they're pumping that much money paying lawyers in order to avoid using work that someone else has already done. They're forced to wast

• tokenizerrr 11y ago
  Not just re-invent, since if you happen to invent something by yourself the same way as it happens to have been patented then you're still in trouble.
  • stephengillie 11y ago
    Or (I'm assuming, IANAL) you could pursue a court battle, and attempt to prove that your independent invention means it's too obvious to be patentable.
    • loumf 11y ago
      I think you mean "too obvious" (can't be too novel) I think it would be a big mistake to admit that yours is the same, because if this doesn't carry you've effectively said you are infringing.
• serge2k 11y ago
  Or they could pay the people who invented it already. oh that's right. The whole point is they don't want to.
  • knowaveragejoe 11y ago
    That's because it's prohibitively expensive and negates the possibility of its inclusion in free products. At least, according to the blog post.
    • ChrisLomont 11y ago
      Older codec were not prohibitively expensive otherwise the proliferation of video products using patented codecs would not exist. His complaint against H.265 will likely be fixed, and then it too will catch on, just as H.264 did, despite these same types of complaints against it.
      • mschuster91 11y ago
        > Older codec were not prohibitively expensive otherwise the proliferation of video products using patented codecs would not exist. Because audio and movie pirates don't care what codecs they use, and VLC has supported pretty much everything you throw at it, patents be damned. What do you think most early iPod adopters filled the disks with? Surely no legally bought music, lol.
        • ChrisLomont 11y ago
          There are many more products besides the few that skirt the law. >What do you think most early iPod adopters filled the disks with? The first iPods shipped with decoders for several patented codecs, including mp3. This supports my claim that the codecs were not prohibitively expensive to make gadgets that include royalty payments to codec patent holders.
          • ZeroGravitas 11y ago
            Apple refused to release QuickTime 6 until the MPEG-LA licensing for MPEG-4 was changed. This supports the claim that codec licensing has always been a contentious area.
            • ChrisLomont 11y ago
              I agree it has always been contentious. I disagree that it was "prohibitively expensive".
              • 11y ago