H.264 is royalty-free for free web broadcast, so I don’t think YouTube has to pay a per-video or per-user fee. Google probably has to pay a fee per encoder, but

H.264 is royalty-free for free web broadcast, so I don’t think YouTube has to pay a per-video or per-user fee. Google probably has to pay a fee per encoder, but that seems like a relatively minor cost. They probably also have to pay a decoder fee for every copy of Chrome downloaded. If Microsoft’s pulling strings at Nokia, it’s probably because Google hypocritically tried to screw them over using Motorola’s H.264 patents: http://www.electronista.com/articles/13/03/22/one.patent.remains.to.be.heard.by.itc.in.this.battery.of.complaints/ http://www.electronista.com/articles/13/03/22/one.patent.rem... Does it really seem like Google’s acting in good faith here?