4 ms·
Good. This will hopefully force the matter and get all the patent claims out in the open. I doubt that actual holders of patents will play their cards close to
by xal 16y ago
Good. This will hopefully force the matter and get all the patent claims out in the open. I doubt that actual holders of patents will play their cards close to their chests here because the upside of the cut of the bundle license for their patents through MPEG LA will be so large.
While I wish you couldn't patent software or algorithms we cannot ignore the fact that you can by simply willful ignorance and wishing that the patents go away if we just not think about them.
At the end of this process the thread from submarine patens will be vastly reduced and hardware manufacturers and companies like MS and Apple have a realistic road to supporting VP8.
- kierank 16y agoExcept that VP8 licensing will be a mere drop in the ocean compared to AVC licensing.
- wmf 16y agoI predict that Apple will say "why should we pay to use VP8 when we've already paid for a superior codec?" Once VP8 costs money, it has no benefit over H.264.
- xal 16y agopresumably it may be less because the bundle will contain less patents but that wouldn't be an unreasonable position to take, you are right.
- wmf 16y agoIMO it doesn't matter whether VP8 costs one cent or one dollar; if you've already paid for H.264 then even one cent for VP8 is a waste of money. And those who aren't willing to pay (Mozilla and Opera) are not even willing to pay one cent. Historically every new codec has been cheaper (despite containing more technology), so I expect VP8 to be cheaper than H.264, but H.265 may be cheaper still.