5 ms·

Patent-unencumbered is the term that I should've probably used, but as you will see in the neighboring reply, there is no reason to believe anyone would pull on

by jchw 3y ago

Patent-unencumbered is the term that I should've probably used, but as you will see in the neighboring reply, there is no reason to believe anyone would pull on this thread in good faith. This sucks, because I'd rather assume good faith, but.

scarface_74 3y ago
Can you name one “patent unencumbered” codec? And “Words Mean Things”. There is a huge difference between “open source implementations” and “patent unencumbered” codecs
- jchw 3y ago
  Can you accept that I'm not sincerely engaging with this line of thinking? I know where it leads. I'm not stupid.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    What line of thinking? If you said you want to ride a unicorn, I would ask you where can you find one
    - jchw 3y ago
      I strongly, strongly dislike what you are doing. You know exactly what I mean when I say it, but are pretending not to, even explicitly suggesting 'ah, just because the codec's open source doesn't mean it's not patent encumbered' without explicitly saying what you really want to say, just for the sake of allowing me to activate a "trap card" wherein I say "Ahh, no, I don't mean like x264, I mean like VP9!" and then you can flip around and say "Ah HAH! Actually, VP9 ISN'T patent-unencumbered: check out all of this propaganda from a literal patent cartel about how if you use VP9, they will bust your ass sideways, unless you license it using their patent pool!" And I don't care. I'll care when Wikipedia gets sued for using Opus, or AV1, or when Mozilla gets sued for shipping it in their browser, or something. Until then, as far as I'm concerned, it's empty threats from dog shit liars. But this aside, I don't understand why you can't just say what you mean right out the gates since I know you know what I am talking about, I know you knew from reply 1, and I'm sure you've already played through this conversation before. I could've said Theora, Quite OK Audio or perhaps even MPEG Layer 3 just to fuck around, but I really would like to have an honest conversation, and not just mess around with technicalities. I'm not interested in debating the legal system, or how AOM's license agreement works, or any of that crap. In practice, almost everyone can use "open", patent-unencumbered codecs without fear of lawsuits. The companies big enough to have to worry about patent lawsuits virtually no matter what have basically been using patent agreements as a weapon against the traditional patent cartels. This is of course, deeply unfortunate, since it just perpetuates the terribly broken U.S. patent system and the situation it has with video codecs. I understand that you have Opinions:tm: regarding this, I already caught on. But what you have to understand is that to most people, including plenty of lawyers, these opinions are essentially fringe. If they weren't, AV1 wouldn't be shipping in Firefox and Wikipedia wouldn't be using them. And not only that, it has nothing to do with the concept of patent-unencumbered codecs. There's always going to be codecs where the known patents have simply expired. At least in the U.S., I'm pretty sure that even includes MPEG2, but it'd suck if open source software was limited to just MPEG2. (And of course, if we do find new patents not covered under previous patent pools, that happen to apply, you have to realize that this liability existed for everyone already, including people who paid royalties anyways.)
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        I mean that if I’m a business the size of Netflix, I very much care about the difference between “patent encumbered with an open source” implementation and “patent unencumbered”. In the first case, a patent troll can come after me. On the other hand, if I use H.264 as a large business and I choose to modify the open source implementation and pay the royalties, I’m mostly covered. Theora was last updated over a decade ago and currently no processor has built in support for it making it a non startee on mobile devices where battery life is at a premium. And if AV1 meets your definition of “open” why are you complaining about Apple not supporting an “open codec” since Safari supports AV1? While you may not be interested in talking about the legal system, I can guarantee you that every major company is before they re-encode their library using a codec or add die to the chip to optimize decoding. Big companies can’t use their patents against small patent trolls who are just holding companies built just to sue large companies. In other words, it is financially dumb for any large company to support an “open” protocol based on 20 year old technology (when patents expire) or newer supposed “open” codecs that are just as patent encumbered.
        jchw 3y ago
        I said iPhone/iPad not Safari. The difference is imperative, since Safari on iOS does NOT support AV1. I have a fully patched iPad, I'm absolutely 100% certain. Anyway, if it's good enough for Mozilla and Wikipedia and thousands of smaller companies, it's good enough for me. You do you.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        You may have a “fully patched iPad”. I assume you don’t have an iPhone 15 Pro or Pro Max with hardware decoding of AV1… https://bitmovin.com/apple-av1-support/ https://bitmovin.com/apple-av1-support/ > The WebKit blog provided more information about Safari 17.0, confirming support for the AV1 video codec was added on devices with hardware decoding support And if you don’t believe the blog, maybe you believe the caniuse site. https://caniuse.com/av1 https://caniuse.com/av1

by jchw 3y ago

scarface_74 3y ago

Can you name one “patent unencumbered” codec? And “Words Mean Things”. There is a huge difference between “open source implementations” and “patent unencumbered” codecs

jchw 3y ago
Can you accept that I'm not sincerely engaging with this line of thinking? I know where it leads. I'm not stupid.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  What line of thinking? If you said you want to ride a unicorn, I would ask you where can you find one
  - jchw 3y ago
    I strongly, strongly dislike what you are doing. You know exactly what I mean when I say it, but are pretending not to, even explicitly suggesting 'ah, just because the codec's open source doesn't mean it's not patent encumbered' without explicitly saying what you really want to say, just for the sake of allowing me to activate a "trap card" wherein I say "Ahh, no, I don't mean like x264, I mean like VP9!" and then you can flip around and say "Ah HAH! Actually, VP9 ISN'T patent-unencumbered: check out all of this propaganda from a literal patent cartel about how if you use VP9, they will bust your ass sideways, unless you license it using their patent pool!" And I don't care. I'll care when Wikipedia gets sued for using Opus, or AV1, or when Mozilla gets sued for shipping it in their browser, or something. Until then, as far as I'm concerned, it's empty threats from dog shit liars. But this aside, I don't understand why you can't just say what you mean right out the gates since I know you know what I am talking about, I know you knew from reply 1, and I'm sure you've already played through this conversation before. I could've said Theora, Quite OK Audio or perhaps even MPEG Layer 3 just to fuck around, but I really would like to have an honest conversation, and not just mess around with technicalities. I'm not interested in debating the legal system, or how AOM's license agreement works, or any of that crap. In practice, almost everyone can use "open", patent-unencumbered codecs without fear of lawsuits. The companies big enough to have to worry about patent lawsuits virtually no matter what have basically been using patent agreements as a weapon against the traditional patent cartels. This is of course, deeply unfortunate, since it just perpetuates the terribly broken U.S. patent system and the situation it has with video codecs. I understand that you have Opinions:tm: regarding this, I already caught on. But what you have to understand is that to most people, including plenty of lawyers, these opinions are essentially fringe. If they weren't, AV1 wouldn't be shipping in Firefox and Wikipedia wouldn't be using them. And not only that, it has nothing to do with the concept of patent-unencumbered codecs. There's always going to be codecs where the known patents have simply expired. At least in the U.S., I'm pretty sure that even includes MPEG2, but it'd suck if open source software was limited to just MPEG2. (And of course, if we do find new patents not covered under previous patent pools, that happen to apply, you have to realize that this liability existed for everyone already, including people who paid royalties anyways.)
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      I mean that if I’m a business the size of Netflix, I very much care about the difference between “patent encumbered with an open source” implementation and “patent unencumbered”. In the first case, a patent troll can come after me. On the other hand, if I use H.264 as a large business and I choose to modify the open source implementation and pay the royalties, I’m mostly covered. Theora was last updated over a decade ago and currently no processor has built in support for it making it a non startee on mobile devices where battery life is at a premium. And if AV1 meets your definition of “open” why are you complaining about Apple not supporting an “open codec” since Safari supports AV1? While you may not be interested in talking about the legal system, I can guarantee you that every major company is before they re-encode their library using a codec or add die to the chip to optimize decoding. Big companies can’t use their patents against small patent trolls who are just holding companies built just to sue large companies. In other words, it is financially dumb for any large company to support an “open” protocol based on 20 year old technology (when patents expire) or newer supposed “open” codecs that are just as patent encumbered.
      - jchw 3y ago
        I said iPhone/iPad not Safari. The difference is imperative, since Safari on iOS does NOT support AV1. I have a fully patched iPad, I'm absolutely 100% certain. Anyway, if it's good enough for Mozilla and Wikipedia and thousands of smaller companies, it's good enough for me. You do you.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        You may have a “fully patched iPad”. I assume you don’t have an iPhone 15 Pro or Pro Max with hardware decoding of AV1… https://bitmovin.com/apple-av1-support/ https://bitmovin.com/apple-av1-support/ > The WebKit blog provided more information about Safari 17.0, confirming support for the AV1 video codec was added on devices with hardware decoding support And if you don’t believe the blog, maybe you believe the caniuse site. https://caniuse.com/av1 https://caniuse.com/av1