3 ms·
>I also find it puzzling that Google is being accused of giving users fewer choices, while Microsoft and Apple aren't even mentioned. They refuse to support Web
by recoiledsnake 16y ago
>I also find it puzzling that Google is being accused of giving users fewer choices, while Microsoft and Apple aren't even mentioned. They refuse to support WebM, after all.
Err, Microsoft has already declared that WebM will be supported if a compatible plugin codec is installed on the machine. They just don't want patent trolls (successfully) suing them for shipping hundreds of WebM decoders. After all, Google is not indemnifying users of WebM from patents(like Android OEMs like HTC were left on their own when Apple decided to sued) like Microsoft does with Windows Phone 7.
Opera is being disingenuous by spinning this as if Microsoft blocks WebM from being used in IE9 for the HTML5 video tag.
- k33l0r 16y agoIt's worth pointing out that MPEG-LA also doesn't offer patent indemnification on H.264 or any of its other formats. I can't find where I originally read this, but EETimes mentions it at the end of this article: http://www.eetimes.com/design/other/4012977/MPEG-licensing-basics?pageNumber=1 http://www.eetimes.com/design/other/4012977/MPEG-licensing-b... "Also, MPEG LA does not offer any indemnification guaranteeing that its patents do not infringe someone else's patent rights."
- alanh 16y agoWorth pointing out? Sure, but let’s not forget that what MPEG-LA actually does is license to you all the patents which H.264 is known to use — so you’re probably not infringing anything, barring of course the insanity the USPTO perpetuates… If you have a patent for part of the H.264 process, chances are, you’re part of the MPEG-LA and getting royalties through that organization already, legitimately, without suing anyone.
- thomasmeeks 16y agoThe patents WebM is known to use are also licensed. http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/ http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/
- vetinari 16y agoMicrosoft also thought that they properly licensed MP3, until they were forced to pay additional $1.52B to Alcatel-Lucent... MPEG-LA does not provide any protection agains patent holders coming out of the blue.
- recoiledsnake 16y agoVery true. But by shipping WebM, MS would be vulnerable not to the patent holders coming out of the blue on H.264, but also ALL the mpeg-la companies AND patent holders coming out of the blue. It would greatly increase their risk. I think they have reached a good compromise by developing support for IE9 to pickup WebM codecs installed by the user and playing HTML5 video through it.
- vetinari 16y agoThe WebM patent grant contains insurance against this. If any "new" patent holder sues anyone or makes available their patents for suing by other party, he will be excluded from the (VP8) patent grant. Any CE or IT company will think twice, whether it is worth it. Can you imagine Samsung or LG suing someone over VP8 and in return losing access to VP8 content on Youtube? What it will do to their CE business?
- alanh 16y agoFascinating. I did not know this. Sounds like a clever, or at least smart, legal move!
- jarek 16y agoAs a nitpick, this is an Opera employee presenting his views, not those of Opera Software ASA.
- othermaciej 16y agoSafari also supports pluggable codecs via the QuickTime component mechanism. I don't know if anyone has made a WebM QuickTime component yet though.