3 ms·
>Also the typical patent FUD in this article suggesting that WebM might violate patents without naming them is somewhat indicative of the author's motives. Sta
by recoiledsnake 16y ago
>Also the typical patent FUD in this article suggesting that WebM might violate patents without naming them is somewhat indicative of the author's motives.
Stating that Webm might turn into a patent minefield is FUD now? What happened to journalistic freedom and rational discourse?
- bryanlarsen 16y agoThe two biggest possibilities are: 1) WebM infringes on h264 patents AND h264 infringes on VP3 patents. Remember VP3 is the predecessor to WebM and came out before h264. or 2) neither infringes on the patents. So the 3rd unlikely possibility is FUD, yes.
- tomlin 16y agoThe author has and had the freedom to publish. No one stopped him from publishing the article. The HN crowd don't really respect a conjecture without evidence. That's kinda why I come here.
- sorbus 16y agoIf I say "with additional research, it may be discovered that there's a correlation between eating corn and various degenerative diseases, and therefor you should not eat corn" with no evidence to support that assertion, it is FUD. Similarly, if I say "with additional research, it may be discovered that WebM infringes on patents, and therefor you should not use it" with no evidence to support that assertion, it is FUD. If a claim is unsupported but used as a criticism of something - especially a reason not to use a product - then it is FUD.