7 ms·

I get really tired of people saying that the patents on H.264 are a "red herring." How is open source software like Firefox supposed to use H.264 if they have t

I get really tired of people saying that the patents on H.264 are a "red herring." How is open source software like Firefox supposed to use H.264 if they have to pay massive licensing fees? That enforcement thus far has been weak to non-existent doesn't imply that it will continue to be so in the future.

DrJokepu 16y ago
For example, by trying to use the codec that is provided by the underlying operating system. The latest versions of both Windows and OS X ship with a H264 codec.
- cgranade 16y ago
  And what of Linux, and its variants like Android or MeeGo?
  - griftah 16y ago
    Android supports H.264.
    - DeusExMachina 16y ago
      I genuinely wonder if it will in the future. Does not the same reasons for pulling H264 from Chrome hold for the Android browser too?
      - griftah 16y ago
        Carriers will put it back.
  - DrJokepu 16y ago
    Yes, Linux is a bit of a problem. In case of Android and MeeGo, the distributor or the manufacturer can deal with licensing issues and ship the device with a licensed codec. The real problem is non-commercial desktop distributions such as Debian or Fedora; it could still check for the presence of x264 or FFmpeg (with h264 support) on the system and use it if it's available, and defer the responsibility of licensing to the user or distributor.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - wzdd 16y ago
    I'm not sure why Firefox has to support H.264 on all its platforms, but in this case it can, through Flash. Even if it couldn't, why would it be a bad thing for Firefox to support OS-supplied codecs on OS X and Windows, and a set of built-in codecs, such as WebM, on Linux?
    - nitrogen 16y ago
      OS codecs are an unquantifiable security risk, since their source code is not available to Mozilla.
  - eddieplan9 16y ago
    Just a theory, but I think before Google's move, hardware decoder would be ubiquitous. Think ION. Think Atom. Think Tegra 2.
  - foljs 16y ago
    Eh, who the * cares about Linux on the Desktop and its puny market share?
  - tzs 16y ago
    H.264 is readily available on Linux.
- aw3c2 16y ago
  We had that situation back in the early days of modern mainstream internet. Remember Real Player? WMV embedding? It was not fun.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
alanthonyc 16y ago
H.264 patents are a red herring because WebM is not known to be patent free either. The assumption is that patent holders are waiting for WebM to gain traction before springing the lawsuits. The devil you know versus the devil you don't.
- theBobMcCormick 16y ago
  Is there any non trivial piece of software that's known to be patent free? Isn't it probable, even likely, that there are additional patent holders who'll come after H.264 implementations eventually?
  - ianhawes 16y ago
    Possible, but not probable. H.264 has been researched extensively prior to it being broadly used. Compare that with WebM, which was not vetted in the same way H.264 was.
- haberman 16y ago
  > The devil you know versus the devil you don't. You don't know the H.264 devil any better. It's just as likely that some lone patent wolf will come forward and go after H.264. It's simply FUD to say that WebM is somehow more susceptible. Just because MPEG-LA makes you pay for their set of patents doesn't mean they're protecting you against patents they don't hold.
  - kenjackson 16y ago
    I'd say you know the H264 devil a little better. Why? Because its spec and patents have been extremely well documented for a decade (or so), commented on, and implemented (there are at least 10 implementations I know of). Whereas WebM's details first came to light less than a year ago. You're right that it is possible that either still violate some patent out in the wild. BUT if you were to weigh the odds -- a nearly decade old open standard technology that has openly solicited and worked to get all potential patent holders in the pool OR a technology closed and proprietary until last year. You really call even money on that?
imajes 16y ago
For the record, it appears Mozilla, Inc is very rich and could almost certainly just afford the fees and be done with it. That way they'd close the loop and we'd all adopt h264, pay the money, and be on our way to HTML5 video. It's clear that the adoption of webm is about control and changing the conversation: Google & Mozilla want to drive the direction and own the space. Let's not forget, mozilla owns the 'open source' identity and needs to keep it going, whilst Google has a significantly vested interest with YouTube.
- beej71 16y ago
  I can't afford to make a popular browser, though. Sure I can fork one in a second, but if people started using it a lot, I'd be screwed. Only make a popular browser if you're rich enough to support H.264, I think is the lesson.
  - anonymous246 16y ago
    Both commonly used OS's (Windows and Mac) have OS-level services to play H.264. No need for browser to license anything. In this instance, Mozilla has gone out of it's way to not use the OS-level facility, forcing Microsoft to write a plugin to make that happen.
    - beej71 16y ago
      Well, FWIW, I disagree with Firefox not using it if its free to use. However, I still totally object to H.264 being a requirement in the spec.
- weavejester 16y ago
  The problem isn't financial; it's ideological. The GPL says that no additional restrictions must be placed on the end user. The H.264 license says that only personal and non-commercial use is allowed. I'm not sure whether they legally conflict, but the H.264 license is obviously against the spirit of the GPL.
po 16y ago
Sure but the license itself does imply that. The price licensees pay is pro-rated based on usage but is also capped at 6.5 million until 2015. The license will be renewed every 5 years but will not increase more than 10%: The first term of the License runs through 2010, but the License will be renewable for successive five-year periods for the life of any Portfolio patent on reasonable terms and conditions which may take into account prevailing market conditions, changes in technological environment and available commercial products at the time, but for the protection of licensees, royalty rates applicable to specific license grants or specific licensed products will not increase by more than ten percent (10%) at each renewal. (PDF link:) http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/AVC_TermsSummary.pdf http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/AVC_TermsS...
- ZeroGravitas 16y ago
  They used to raise the cap by 10% every year, then last year it jumped 30% and got fixed for the next 5 years. I assume that added clarity was a concession to pressure from WebM even though it meant a higher price hike right now. They also specifically added text clarifying that the cap was not limited to a 10% yearly rise so the max amount payable is explicity unknown and unlimited.
  - po 16y ago
    That's a good point. Here is the payment history: The maximum annual royalty (“cap”) for an Enterprise (commonly controlled Legal Entities) is $3.5 million per year 2005-2006, $4.25 million per year 2007-08, $5 million per year 2009-10, and $6.5 million per year in 2011-15. …and you're right that there is a footnote saying. "Annual royalty caps are not subject to the 10% limitation" which is important. I do find it a bit strange to hear people say the license fees are unknown. Even if you assume an unlimited cap, you can schedule out what the pro-rated fees will look like for you for the next 5-10 years based on your projected growth. You can argue that they are too high, but I don't think you can argue that they are unknown. If nothing else they are bounded on the high end.
    - ZeroGravitas 16y ago

DrJokepu 16y ago

For example, by trying to use the codec that is provided by the underlying operating system. The latest versions of both Windows and OS X ship with a H264 codec.

cgranade 16y ago
And what of Linux, and its variants like Android or MeeGo?
- griftah 16y ago
  Android supports H.264.
  - DeusExMachina 16y ago
    I genuinely wonder if it will in the future. Does not the same reasons for pulling H264 from Chrome hold for the Android browser too?
    - griftah 16y ago
      Carriers will put it back.
- DrJokepu 16y ago
  Yes, Linux is a bit of a problem. In case of Android and MeeGo, the distributor or the manufacturer can deal with licensing issues and ship the device with a licensed codec. The real problem is non-commercial desktop distributions such as Debian or Fedora; it could still check for the presence of x264 or FFmpeg (with h264 support) on the system and use it if it's available, and defer the responsibility of licensing to the user or distributor.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- wzdd 16y ago
  I'm not sure why Firefox has to support H.264 on all its platforms, but in this case it can, through Flash. Even if it couldn't, why would it be a bad thing for Firefox to support OS-supplied codecs on OS X and Windows, and a set of built-in codecs, such as WebM, on Linux?
  - nitrogen 16y ago
    OS codecs are an unquantifiable security risk, since their source code is not available to Mozilla.
- eddieplan9 16y ago
  Just a theory, but I think before Google's move, hardware decoder would be ubiquitous. Think ION. Think Atom. Think Tegra 2.
- foljs 16y ago
  Eh, who the * cares about Linux on the Desktop and its puny market share?
- tzs 16y ago
  H.264 is readily available on Linux.
aw3c2 16y ago
We had that situation back in the early days of modern mainstream internet. Remember Real Player? WMV embedding? It was not fun.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

alanthonyc 16y ago

H.264 patents are a red herring because WebM is not known to be patent free either. The assumption is that patent holders are waiting for WebM to gain traction before springing the lawsuits. The devil you know versus the devil you don't.

theBobMcCormick 16y ago
Is there any non trivial piece of software that's known to be patent free? Isn't it probable, even likely, that there are additional patent holders who'll come after H.264 implementations eventually?
- ianhawes 16y ago
  Possible, but not probable. H.264 has been researched extensively prior to it being broadly used. Compare that with WebM, which was not vetted in the same way H.264 was.
haberman 16y ago
> The devil you know versus the devil you don't. You don't know the H.264 devil any better. It's just as likely that some lone patent wolf will come forward and go after H.264. It's simply FUD to say that WebM is somehow more susceptible. Just because MPEG-LA makes you pay for their set of patents doesn't mean they're protecting you against patents they don't hold.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  I'd say you know the H264 devil a little better. Why? Because its spec and patents have been extremely well documented for a decade (or so), commented on, and implemented (there are at least 10 implementations I know of). Whereas WebM's details first came to light less than a year ago. You're right that it is possible that either still violate some patent out in the wild. BUT if you were to weigh the odds -- a nearly decade old open standard technology that has openly solicited and worked to get all potential patent holders in the pool OR a technology closed and proprietary until last year. You really call even money on that?

imajes 16y ago

For the record, it appears Mozilla, Inc is very rich and could almost certainly just afford the fees and be done with it. That way they'd close the loop and we'd all adopt h264, pay the money, and be on our way to HTML5 video. It's clear that the adoption of webm is about control and changing the conversation: Google & Mozilla want to drive the direction and own the space. Let's not forget, mozilla owns the 'open source' identity and needs to keep it going, whilst Google has a significantly vested interest with YouTube.

beej71 16y ago
I can't afford to make a popular browser, though. Sure I can fork one in a second, but if people started using it a lot, I'd be screwed. Only make a popular browser if you're rich enough to support H.264, I think is the lesson.
- anonymous246 16y ago
  Both commonly used OS's (Windows and Mac) have OS-level services to play H.264. No need for browser to license anything. In this instance, Mozilla has gone out of it's way to not use the OS-level facility, forcing Microsoft to write a plugin to make that happen.
  - beej71 16y ago
    Well, FWIW, I disagree with Firefox not using it if its free to use. However, I still totally object to H.264 being a requirement in the spec.
weavejester 16y ago
The problem isn't financial; it's ideological. The GPL says that no additional restrictions must be placed on the end user. The H.264 license says that only personal and non-commercial use is allowed. I'm not sure whether they legally conflict, but the H.264 license is obviously against the spirit of the GPL.

po 16y ago

Sure but the license itself does imply that. The price licensees pay is pro-rated based on usage but is also capped at 6.5 million until 2015. The license will be renewed every 5 years but will not increase more than 10%: The first term of the License runs through 2010, but the License will be renewable for successive five-year periods for the life of any Portfolio patent on reasonable terms and conditions which may take into account prevailing market conditions, changes in technological environment and available commercial products at the time, but for the protection of licensees, royalty rates applicable to specific license grants or specific licensed products will not increase by more than ten percent (10%) at each renewal. (PDF link:) http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/AVC_TermsSummary.pdf http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/AVC_TermsS...

ZeroGravitas 16y ago
They used to raise the cap by 10% every year, then last year it jumped 30% and got fixed for the next 5 years. I assume that added clarity was a concession to pressure from WebM even though it meant a higher price hike right now. They also specifically added text clarifying that the cap was not limited to a 10% yearly rise so the max amount payable is explicity unknown and unlimited.
- po 16y ago
  That's a good point. Here is the payment history: The maximum annual royalty (“cap”) for an Enterprise (commonly controlled Legal Entities) is $3.5 million per year 2005-2006, $4.25 million per year 2007-08, $5 million per year 2009-10, and $6.5 million per year in 2011-15. …and you're right that there is a footnote saying. "Annual royalty caps are not subject to the 10% limitation" which is important. I do find it a bit strange to hear people say the license fees are unknown. Even if you assume an unlimited cap, you can schedule out what the pro-rated fees will look like for you for the next 5-10 years based on your projected growth. You can argue that they are too high, but I don't think you can argue that they are unknown. If nothing else they are bounded on the high end.
  - ZeroGravitas 16y ago