3 ms·

This is for a broadcast license, from an article in 2002, for an older technology (straight MPEG-4, not the newer superset H.264 which is now widely embraced.)

by tumult 17y ago

This is for a broadcast license, from an article in 2002, for an older technology (straight MPEG-4, not the newer superset H.264 which is now widely embraced.) I don't know whether or not this proposed broadcast license fee was ever even enacted, though QuickTime does support plain MPEG-4, so I imagine not.

ZeroGravitas 17y ago
What do you mean by "broadcast licence"?. Streaming web video was part of that dispute, and fees for web video providers are a cruicial part of Mozilla's argument. As they're only due to announce what the fees for publishing H.264 will be at the end of this month we'll have to wait for then to see if they are onerous or not. I've also heard that the only reason Microsoft's VC-1 codec is in the Blu-Ray standard is because MPEG-LA were playing hardball on their H.264 licence fees. Here's the manager of Blu-Ray making the very simple point that surrendering to a single patented standard is only going to let them ratchet up prices: "There are other advantages to having two compression techniques," Doherty says. "Moving forward, the technologies can have competition to help drive down licensing fees and improve picture quality." from here: http://www.pcworld.com/article/117681/bluray_disc_to_support_mpeg4_vc1.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/117681/bluray_disc_to_support... If Apple (who also fell out with them about AAC payment terms) and Blu-ray need to play games to achieve reasonable terms then what hope do the small businesses have, especially when the standard response is "let's all lock ourselves into this one codec, what could possibly go wrong?"
- tumult 17y ago
  Mozilla is not a small business. Businesses play games with each other because they are competing in an open market. End users do not have to do this. I don't work at Mozilla, I do not know what their situation is, but saying 'no way' to the whole thing and using a technology that they know nobody else will use and fragmenting web video is not helping end users. If we're lucky, this is all actually maneuvering on the part of Mozilla to get the MPEG LA to lighten their terms with Mozilla.
  - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
    That's the second time in this thread you've implied that only Mozilla is affected by H.264 patent fees. Apple and Google have already tried to get MPEG-LA to freely licence a lower quality subset of H.264 to break this impasse. The individual patent holders of that subset weren't impressed by this suggested compromise and even if they were it would still be a bait and switch technique that leaves open source products as second class citizens. One more thing, you call it an open standard elsewhere. If a standard is described as "open" then that traditionally means no patent fees. H.264 is a standard, but it is not generally held to be an "open standard": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard

by tumult 17y ago

ZeroGravitas 17y ago

What do you mean by "broadcast licence"?. Streaming web video was part of that dispute, and fees for web video providers are a cruicial part of Mozilla's argument. As they're only due to announce what the fees for publishing H.264 will be at the end of this month we'll have to wait for then to see if they are onerous or not. I've also heard that the only reason Microsoft's VC-1 codec is in the Blu-Ray standard is because MPEG-LA were playing hardball on their H.264 licence fees. Here's the manager of Blu-Ray making the very simple point that surrendering to a single patented standard is only going to let them ratchet up prices: "There are other advantages to having two compression techniques," Doherty says. "Moving forward, the technologies can have competition to help drive down licensing fees and improve picture quality." from here: http://www.pcworld.com/article/117681/bluray_disc_to_support_mpeg4_vc1.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/117681/bluray_disc_to_support... If Apple (who also fell out with them about AAC payment terms) and Blu-ray need to play games to achieve reasonable terms then what hope do the small businesses have, especially when the standard response is "let's all lock ourselves into this one codec, what could possibly go wrong?"

tumult 17y ago
Mozilla is not a small business. Businesses play games with each other because they are competing in an open market. End users do not have to do this. I don't work at Mozilla, I do not know what their situation is, but saying 'no way' to the whole thing and using a technology that they know nobody else will use and fragmenting web video is not helping end users. If we're lucky, this is all actually maneuvering on the part of Mozilla to get the MPEG LA to lighten their terms with Mozilla.
- ZeroGravitas 17y ago
  That's the second time in this thread you've implied that only Mozilla is affected by H.264 patent fees. Apple and Google have already tried to get MPEG-LA to freely licence a lower quality subset of H.264 to break this impasse. The individual patent holders of that subset weren't impressed by this suggested compromise and even if they were it would still be a bait and switch technique that leaves open source products as second class citizens. One more thing, you call it an open standard elsewhere. If a standard is described as "open" then that traditionally means no patent fees. H.264 is a standard, but it is not generally held to be an "open standard": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard