Slashdot Mirror

MPEG LA, the group that formed a patent pool for H.264, does not protect their licensees against all patent infringement - but just against patent infringement suits by their licensors, and only then in the limited case of the specific case of patents included in the pool, and only then for limited times.

Q: Are all AVC essential patents included?

A: No assurance is or can be made that the License includes every essential patent. The purpose of the License is to offer a convenient licensing alternative to everyone on the same terms and to include as much essential intellectual property as possible for their convenience. Participation in the License is voluntary on the part of essential patent holders, however.

So you are in no way more protected by using the restricted H.264 license than you are by using the open VP8 license in the US. In most of the civilized world there's no such thing as software patents, so the only issue is which one of these is technically best.

And now MPEG LA is trying to form a patent pool for VP8. Will wonders never cease? Patents are broken. Let us hope that Monday SCOTUS rules that software patents are void in RE Bilski.

MPEG LA, the group that formed a patent pool for H.264, does not protect their licensees against all patent infringement - but just against patent infringement suits by their licensors, and only then in the limited case of the specific case of patents included in the pool, and only then for limited times.

Q: Are all AVC essential patents included?

A: No assurance is or can be made that the License includes every essential patent. The purpose of the License is to offer a convenient licensing alternative to everyone on the same terms and to include as much essential intellectual property as possible for their convenience. Participation in the License is voluntary on the part of essential patent holders, however.

So you are in no way more protected by using the restricted H.264 license than you are by using the open VP8 license in the US. In most of the civilized world there's no such thing as software patents, so the only issue is which one of these is technically best.

And now MPEG LA is trying to form a patent pool for VP8. Will wonders never cease? Patents are broken. Let us hope that Monday SCOTUS rules that software patents are void in RE Bilski.

All it takes is for h.264 to infringe one patent that Goggle holds and they are stuffed. Google could then simply require for licensing their patent that any patents held by MPEG-LA against VP8 to not be enforced against any implementation of VP8.

If they don't agree then Google can file for an injunction to stop any infringing product from shipping, and collect large damages in the meantime.

MPEG-LA is not a company or a patent holder. MPEG-LA is just a clearinghouse for the companies that do own the patents, including Fraunhofer, Microsoft, Panasonic, and Sony . (Full list here WARNING: PDF)

The various companies that MPEG-LA represents don't necessarily implement h.264 or sell any products based around it. MPEG-LA itself does not own anything or sell anything.

Let's get the patents that MPEG-LA claims might affect VP8 out in the open.

The last article linked to an analysis of VP8 that pointed out its striking similarity to H.264 Baseline. So I guess you can start with the H.264 patent list on mpegla.com. Removing these patented parts would turn it into Theora, which is closer to DivX (MPEG-4 Part 2).

I'm ready to buy my son an $85 ARM-based mini-laptop. There's effectively no room in that kind of price for MPEG-LA licenses

Not really:

For (a) (1) branded encoder and decoder products sold both to end users and on an OEM basis for incorporation into personal computers but not part of an operating system (a decoder, encoder, or product consisting of one decoder and one encoder = “unit”), royalties (beginning January 1, 2005) per legal entity are 0 - 100,000 units per year = no royalty (this threshold is available to one legal entity in an affiliated group); US $0.20 per unit after first 100,000 units each year; above 5 million units per year, royalty = US $0.10 per unit. 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.

For (a) (2) branded encoder and decoder products sold on an OEM basis for incorporation into personal computers as part of a computer operating system, a legal entity may pay for its customers as follows (beginning January 1, 2005): 0 - 100,000 units/year = no royalty (available to one legal entity in an affiliated group); US $0.20 per unit after first 100,000 units/year; above 5 million units/year, royalty = US $0.10 per unit. The maximum annual royalty (“cap”) for an enterprise (commonly controlled legal entities) is $3.5 million per year in 2005-2006, $4.25 million per year in 2007-08 and $5 million per year in 2009-10.

Intel is not an MPEG LA Licensor. They don't have a dog in this fight. They'll come around.

Or they won't, and they'll bear the consequences of attempting to stifle this real progress. Their choice.

Once the majority of online video content is transcoded and the majority of users support an open codec, I can see a business case for deprecating H.264. It costs money to store data in multiple formats, and H.264 encoding licenses aren't free for commercial use.

The article is wrong. According to the MPEG-LA, there are patents on H.264 in at least the following countries:

Germany, France, UK, Finland, Italy, Sweden, Belgium, Bulgaria, Liechtenstein, Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain, Hungary, Ireland, The Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Portugal, Slovenia, Japan, China, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, India, Canada, Mexico, Australia

See http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/PatentList.aspx

Interesting that the U.S. isn't on the list. It represents a pretty huge market share of browsers, so the project might be worth it even if it's just usable in the U.S. It is nice to see that the U.S. isn't the most patent encumbered country for a change!

The article is wrong. According to the MPEG-LA, there are patents on H.264 in at least the following countries:

Germany, France, UK, Finland, Italy, Sweden, Belgium, Bulgaria, Liechtenstein, Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain, Hungary, Ireland, The Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Portugal, Slovenia, Japan, China, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, India, Canada, Mexico, Australia

See http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/PatentList.aspx

The summary is a *lie*.

MPEG-LA's patent list at http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/PatentList.aspx shows patents in the US, Canada, Germany, Russia, South Korea, France, United Kingdom, Japan, Mexico, Singapore, Taiwan, Australia, China, Finland, Italy, Sweden, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain, Hong Kong, Hungary, Ireland, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Turkey and Lichtenstein - and that's in the first 4 pages of a 56-page document, with most of the patents quite live.

Sure, patent law isn't enforced as vigorously in some of those countries as it is in the US, but to say that just South Korea and the USA are problem states is misleading and dangerous, particularly with ACTA coming down the pipeline.

I'm not saying that h.264 is the wrong choice, it certainly seems better than the competition right now, but just because the licensing group are playing nice at the moment, don't assume they will always play nice.

The fundamental problem here is the geek's obsession with the browser.

H.264 has rock-solid anchorage in professional production. In broadcasting. Cable and satellite distribution. Blu-Ray. CCTV [Industrial and Security Video, for example]

A casual search of Google Shopping returns 1600 hits for "H.264 WiFi Camera."

Home video.

The $125 HD "Flip" pocket camcorder. The $5,000 Sony Handycam.

Google Shopping returns 3600 hits for "H.264 Camcorder." In stores now.

The major stakeholders in H.264 are global industrial giants. Names like Fujitsu, Hitachi, Mitsubishi, Panasonic, Philips, Samsung, Siemens and Toshiba. AVC/H.264 Licensors

The 817 H.264 licensees include dozens - hundreds of names - which would be considered first-tier in their respective markets.

Many, many, of these enormously rich and influential companies are based in China, Japan and Korea. They have no reason to follow Mozilla's lead - or Google's.

From the numbers a lot of people have posted, it would only cost about 3 cents per copy of Firefox.

SUMMARY OF AVC/H.264 LICENSE TERMS

For (1) branded encoder and decoder products sold both to end users and on an OEM basis for incorporation into personal computers but not part of an operating system (a decoder, encoder, or product consisting of one decoder and one encoder = "unit"), royalties...per legal entity are:

0 - 100,000 units per year = no royalty (this threshold is available to one legal entity in an affiliated group);
US $0.20 per unit after first 100,000 units each year;
above 5 million units per year, royalty = US $0.10 per unit.

The maximum annual royalty ("cap") for an enterprise (commonly controlled legal entities) is...$5 million per year 2009-10.

_____

MPEG LA seems interested only in very large scale commercial deployment of H.264.

Local TV broadcasters serving more than 100,000 households. Subscription services like HBO with more than 100,000 subscribers.

Brand-name consumer products: the HDTV from LG or Samsung. The video game console from Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo.

It's not at all clear to me why - apart from ideological reasons - Mozilla couldn't negotiate a free-as-in-beer license for the codec for bare-bones non-commercial deployments of the Firefox browser.

No OEM or marketing tie-ins. No customization of the browser.

It wouldn't be the first time I have asked myself if Mozilla wouldn't benefit from a more arm's length relationship with Google.

So please, don't blame the kind people a MPEG for MPEG-LA. Blame MPEG-LA themselves, http://mpegla.com/

It's that blasted media franchising culture again, isn't it! CSI, great. CIS-Miami, wall to wall sunglass gestures. CSI NY, ghastly. MPEG, lovely. MPEG-LA, rubbish. And you just know the next one's going to be MPEG-Hawaii or something equally horrible.

To make this a little more clear:

In the case of Internet broadcast (AVC video that is delivered via the Worldwide Internet to an end user for which the End User does not pay remuneration for the right to receive or view, i.e., neither title-by-title nor subscription),there will be no royalty during the first term of the License (ending December 31, 2010),
and after the first term the royalty shall be no more than the economic equivalent of
royalties payable during the same time for free television.

The broadcast license for a single station in markets over 1,000,000 households is $10,000/yr.

In markets of less than 100,000 households, a station can license AVC encoders for a one-time payment of $2,500 each - and that will be the end of it.

The enterprise license - for broadcast and cable media giants like Disney - maxes out at $5,000,000/yr.

Licenses are for five years, with a 10% cap on any increases on renewal.

There are the problems for your "free" codec of choice:

1 Google is a giant in Search.

Hitachi, Mitsubishi, Panasonic, Philips, Samsung, Toshiba and the rest are giants in manufacturing.

Consumer goods. Industrial technologies.

H.264 hardware acceleration is available now or "coming soon" for everything from your cell phone to the 4Kx2K theatrical quality projector.

OEM hardware support is everything.

The geek builds his Field of Dreams player into a browser and prays for rain.

2 The free alternative needs miraculous "ten-thousand-angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin" compression before anyone will see a dime in savings on media, storage and transmission.

3 The free alternative needs editing and production tools as good as those available now from Adobe, Apple and Sony.

SUMMARY OF AVC/H.264 LICENSE TERMS

And stating that it's relevant to video sharing sites- they're an enabler, but YOU are the one on the hook, not they (because there's yet another license THEY have to have to do what they're doing...) and you're still needing that license in addition to the one they're paying.

Shorts under 12 minutes long are royalty free.

Period.

Amateur or professional production.

Free or paid distribution. It doesn't matter.

Royalties on SALES of disks or downloads are 2% of the retail price or 2 cents a title, whichever is LOWER.

MPEG LA doesn't give a damn about your wedding videos.

Subscription services with less than 100,000 paid subscribers are also royalty free. Your "viewer supported" Free Culture magazine on DVD+R is a go.

Own a cable service or TV station in a market of less than 100,000 households?

The one time fee for an AVC transmission encoder is $2,500.

SUMMARY OF AVC/H.264 LICENSE TERMS

The stakeholders in H.264 are dominated by global industrial giants like Mitsubishi, NTT and Toshiba - about half are based in Korea and Japan. AVC/H.264 Licensors

In the list of 817 H.264 licensees, Japan, China and Korea are extraordinarily well represented in every category. OEM manufacturing. Brand name consumer and industrial tech. Broadcast, cable and satellite distribution.

What I see in H.264 is vertical integration.

Encoders and decoders produced in the tens of millions for every product category.

Brand name consumer products. Cell phones. Webcams. Camcorders. Blu-Ray players. HDTVs. Set top boxes.

Industral and broadcast tech.

A search of Google Shopping for "H.264 WiFi Camera" - typically home security video - will return 1,600 hits.

Tell me how the geek stops this.

How he keeps the cheap, versatile, Asian H.264 product out of his home markets. How he does it without igniting a trade war.

They'll come mug you for money at that point and it's NOT cheap.

It's dirt cheap.

Retail sale, disks or downloads:

Where an end user pays directly for video services on a title-by-title basis ...royalties for video greater than 12 minutes (there is no royalty for a title 12 minutes or less) are...the lower of 2% of the price paid to the Licensee (on first arms length sale of the video) or $0.02 per title

Paid subscription services:

Where an end user pays directly for video services on a subscription-basis (not ordered or limited title-by-title), the applicable royalties per legal entity payable by the service or content provider are:

100,000 or fewer subscribers per year. No royalty. 100,000 to 250,000. $25,000 250,000-500,000. $50,000. 500,000 to 1 million $75,000. Over $1 Million. $100,000.

Broadcast, Cable and Satellite:

where remuneration is from other sources, in the case of free television...satellite and/or cable Transmission, and which is not paid for by an End User), the licensee (the broadcaster) may pay...according to one of two royalty options:

(i) a one-time payment of $2,500 per AVC transmission encoder

or (ii) annual fee per Broadcast Market

starting at $2,500 per calendar year per Broadcast Markets of at least 100,000 but no more than 499,999 television households $5,000 per calendar year per Broadcast Market which includes at least 500,000 but no more than 999,999 television households and $10,000 per calendar year per Broadcast Market which includes 1,000,000 or more television households.

Free distribution over the Internet:

In the case of Internet broadcast for which the End User does not pay remuneration for the right to receive or view, i.e., neither title-by-title nor subscription), there will be no royalty during the first term of the License (ending December 31, 2010), and after the first term the royalty shall be no more than the economic equivalent of royalties payable during the same time for free television.

The Cap

In the case of the sublicenses for video content or service providers, the maximum annual royalty ("cap") for an enterprise (commonly controlled legal entities) is... $5 million per year in 2010.

$5 million a year for as many free H.264 video downloads (over 12 minutes) as Google has the capacity to host.

License terms.

Five years. 10% increase cap on renewals.

SUMMARY OF AVC/H.264 LICENSE TERMS

Why is this buried and being ignored?! This should be modded +5 informative. Get your facts straight before your start your incessant whining...

They'll come mug you for money at that point and it's NOT cheap.

It's dirt cheap.

Retail sale, disks or downloads:

Where an end user pays directly for video services on a title-by-title basis ...royalties for video greater than 12 minutes (there is no royalty for a title 12 minutes or less) are...the lower of 2% of the price paid to the Licensee (on first arms length sale of the video) or $0.02 per title

Paid subscription services:

Where an end user pays directly for video services on a subscription-basis (not ordered or limited title-by-title), the applicable royalties per legal entity payable by the service or content provider are:

100,000 or fewer subscribers per year. No royalty.
100,000 to 250,000. $25,000
250,000-500,000. $50,000.
500,000 to 1 million $75,000.
Over $1 Million. $100,000.

Broadcast, Cable and Satellite:

where remuneration is from other sources, in the case of free television...satellite and/or cable Transmission, and which is not paid for by an End User), the licensee (the broadcaster) may pay...according to one of two royalty options:

(i) a one-time payment of $2,500 per AVC transmission encoder

or (ii) annual fee per Broadcast Market

starting at $2,500 per calendar year per Broadcast Markets of at least 100,000
but no more than 499,999 television households
$5,000 per calendar year per Broadcast
Market which includes at least 500,000 but no more than 999,999 television households
and $10,000 per calendar year per Broadcast Market which includes 1,000,000 or more television households.

Free distribution over the Internet:

In the case of Internet broadcast for which the End User does not pay remuneration for the right to receive or view, i.e., neither title-by-title nor subscription), there will be no royalty during the first term of the License (ending December 31, 2010), and after the first term the royalty shall be no more than the economic equivalent of royalties payable during the same time for free television.

The Cap

In the case of the sublicenses for video content or service providers, the maximum annual royalty ("cap") for an enterprise (commonly controlled legal entities) is... $5 million per year in 2010.

$5 million a year for as many free H.264 video downloads (over 12 minutes) as Google has the capacity to host.

License terms.

Five years. 10% increase cap on renewals.

SUMMARY OF AVC/H.264 LICENSE TERMS

the reasons this is a bad thing in the long run are as follows:

Summary of AVC/H.264 Licensing

1. This license is only for playing video encoded into the format.

The fee is paid by the OS or hardware manufacturer. Maxes out at $5 million a year for Apple or Microsoft. Smaller deployments, 10 to 20 cents a unit. No charge for sales of less than 100,000 units.

2. If you want to use a video editor to edit or create video in this format, you need a license, and you can't use Free programs to do so.

Use any tool you want.
MPEG LA is all about licensing codecs and content on a commercial scale.

3. If you want to sell your created video in H.264 format, you also need a license to do so.

Only for videos 12 minutes and over and only if you are raking in the green.

Gross $100K or so and you will have to pay MPEG LA the lower of 2% of the price paid to you (on first arms length sale of a video) or $0.02 per title.

There is no charge for paid subscription services if you have less than 200,000 subscribers.

4. In the USA, it is illegal to use Free implementations of the codec to study or share.

You are - again - for all practical purposes, invisible to MPEG LA until you begin distributing media content on a commercial scale.

Both Apple and Microsoft, two of the more influential forces in the decision, are stakeholders in MPEG LA. Add the fact that they both probably feels slightly anxious over the seemingly immortal Open Source guys, that just refuses to keel over, but invades market after market.

The major stake holders in H.264 are global industrial giants:

Fujitsu, Hitachi, Mitsubishi, NTT, Panasonic, Philips, Siemens, Samsung, Sony, Toshiba.... AVC/H.264 Licensors

The 817 H.264 H.264 licensees include damn near every other recognizable brand name in consumer and industrial tech on the planet.

China and Japan and Korea are particularly well-represented. In OEM hardware. In broadcasting. In home video.

The Open Source guy isn't immortal here.

He's roadkill. Street pizza.

Little Dolly Dumpling tied to the railroad tracks.

Since when had technological advantages had anything to do with business decisions?

Both Apple and Microsoft, two of the more influential forces in the decision, are stakeholders in MPEG LA. Add the fact that they both probably feels slightly anxious over the seemingly immortal Open Source guys, that just refuses to keel over, but invades market after market. Considered they had the chance to throw a monkey-wrench right into their common enemy, Open Source Software, and I think the decision was made completely without regard to technology.

SUMMARY OF AVC/H.264 LICENSE TERMS [PDF]

For (b) (1) where an end user pays directly for video services on a title-by-title basis (e.g., where viewer determines titles to be viewed or number of viewable titles are otherwise limited), royalties for video greater than 12 minutes (there is no royalty for a title 12 minutes or less) are (beginning January 1, 2006) the lower of 2% of the price paid to the Licensee (on first arms length sale of the video) or $0.02 per title (categories of licensees include legal entities that are (i) replicators of physical media, and (ii) service/content providers (e.g., cable, satellite, video DSL, internet and mobile) of VOD, PPV and electronic downloads to end users).

10 Where an end user pays directly for video services on a subscription-basis (not ordered or limited title-by-title), the applicable royalties per legal entity payable by the service or content provider are (beginning January 1, 2006) 100,000 or fewer subscribers during the year = no royalty; greater than 100,000 to 250,000 subscribers during the year = $25,000; greater than 250,000 to 500,000 subscribers during the year = $50,000; greater than 500,000 to 1,000,000 subscribers during the year = $75,000; greater than 1,000,000 subscribers during the year = $100,000.

Is it naive to suggest that "Free Culture" and "Non-Commercial" - just might have similiar and related meanings?

Yeah, but, lets face it - Apple and Microsoft have a shared vested interest in promoting H.264 and detracting Ogg/Theora - Apple has a patent in the H.264 pool (and a pretty major one), and Microsoft has 30 US patents alone in that pool (and many non-US patents, as well - reference). Steve Jobs has even stated that he intends to create a group to go after Ogg/Theora for patent violations, saying anything to do with video is patented, and has been one of the biggest Ogg/Theora opponents from the beginning.

    Apple and Microsoft don't care about free and open standards in web browsers because it doesn't profit them - in fact, I imagine they'd like to cram as many proprietary patents in as possible so they can charge for tools to create them. With H.264 patented for at least the next 20 years, there is a lot of money to be had.

Because Microsoft made a deal with MPEG-LA, that's why. MPEG-LA makes money off patent licensing.

The profit in licensing is elsewhere.

In professional production and distribution. In hardware.

Microsoft pays into MPEG-LA about twice as much as it receives back for rights to H.264. Much of what Microsoft pays in royalties is so that people who buy Windows (on a new PC from an OEM or as a packaged product) can just play H.264 video or DVD movies. Microsoft receives back from MPEG-LA less than half the amount for the patent rights that it contributes because there are many other companies that provide the licensed functionality in content and products that sell in high volume. Follow Up on HTML5 Video in IE9

Don't believe it?

Then try counting the number of industrial giants like Mitsubishi and Toshiba on this list: AVC/H.264 Licensees

"The AVC Patent Portfolio License is divided into two principal parts (see Diagram): (a)
sublicenses for encoder and decoder manufacturers granting the right to manufacture and
sell and a limited right only for personal consumer use by or between end users (such as
in connection with a video teleconference or mobile messaging) but not other uses (left
half of the Diagram)2, and (b) sublicenses for video content or service providers granting
them the right to use decoders and encoders for other uses of AVC video (right half of the
Diagram)3."

source
http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Documents/AVC_TermsSummary.pdf

http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Documents/AVC_TermsSummary.pdf

look on page 2 for the chart...

Well they do. http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%20LA%20News%20List/Attachments/203/n_08-10-14_pr.pdf

Outside the US there are no software patents, therefore h.264 can't have any patent over it, therefore MPEG-LA can't threaten anybody for anything.

Wrong. The MPEG-LA claims patents in many countries, including much of Europe. Boris Zbarsky of Mozilla looked at the huge list of H.264 patents, and came up with the following countries where some aspect of H.264 is patented:

• Europe: Germany, France, UK, Finland, Italy, Sweden, Belgium, Bulgaria, Liechtenstein, Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain, Hungary, Ireland, The Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Portugal, Slovenia
• Asia: Japan, China, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, India
• Americas: Canada, Mexico
• Australia

He said he only looked at the first 6 pages out of 43, and wasn't looking very carefully, so there are probably patents in many more countries too. Needless to say, they only need one patent per country to force you to pay royalties.

Please provide sources to backup your statements. Thanks.

Google may be "investing" in Theora, but:

A search of Google Shopping for "H.264 camcorder" will return 3,500 hits.

Consumer products, mostly. Ready to ship to the one-click shopper. Priced from $150-$5000.

A Google Image search for "H.264 video," returns 1.5 million hits, an Image search for "H.264 codec," 1.8 million. (Rounded)

46-47 pages, all relevant.

An Image search for "Theora video," 700, an Image search for "Theora codec," 29,000.

In the 811 AVC/H.264 licensees,, I see the Asian - the global - giants in industrial and consumer tech. Fujitsu. Hitachi. Mitsubishi. Panasonic. Samsung. Sony. Toshiba. Yamaha...

Not dozens of names the geek should recognize. Hundreds.

Critical mass.

There's 1135 patents worldwide that are essential to H.264, 1114 of which are active, 162 of which are active and in the US.

Here's the list: http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/avc-att1.pdf

The trick is probably to use a 20 (or maybe 25, to avoid old submarine patents) year old technology to get around it.

The law allows for monopolies and abuse of power. And it gives you your options. Follow the law - pay licenses for everything, or use legal but impractical alternatives. Break the law - ignore the law and deal with potential legal consequence. Agree with the law or campaign to change the law.

There's 1135 patents worldwide that are essential to H.264, 1114 of which are active, 162 of which are active and in the US.

Here's the list: http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/avc-att1.pdf

The trick is probably to use a 20 (or maybe 25, to avoid old submarine patents) year old technology to get around it.

In other words, the amount of reading between the lines and such required to reach your interpretation is rather excessive.

Things read the same with and without emphasis.

For example, what difference does it make that VP8 is going to be Open Source? And how does VP8 threaten Apple in the first place? If it becomes popular, and if it's superior to H.264, Apple will license it (and if it's fully Open Source in the way people are thinking, Apple won't even *have* to license it).

Who said anything about Apple being threatened? It's the MPEG-LA and their revenue stream that is being threatened; and probably them who are assembling the patent pool. Or are trying to see which of the patents apply to VP8 and Theora

Oh, btw Apple is a part of MPEG-LA as a licensor of patents(they hold one patent) so I guess part of their revenue is threatened too.

It does not take any stretch of imagination at all to see why MPEG-LA would want to try and prevent any MPEG-LA-patent-free video codecs from being released for royalty-free use. The fight is not for a wide-spread free video codec right now. The fight is for 2016.

Apple's objections to Theora aren't strictly financial (outside of the uncertainty of the codec's legal status),

Financial objections? What, the price is too low?

they're practical. In terms of quality, level of adoption and hardware support (specifically as it affects battery and heat)

I wonder how valid that objection is... It turns out that most of the savings are done by using the generic DSP hardware available. So VP8 would also benefit in the same way.

Theora is vastly inferior to H.264.

"Vastly"? How can you just make a sweeping claim like that without anything to back it up? I would say MPEG-2 is vastly inferior to MPEG-4; but Theora is somewhere in the middle. On the other hand, VP8 is supposed to be better than h.264. But I won't pass that judgment until I can see for myself.

The only real advantage of Theora is that it's (presently) free and open.

And that isn't enough? Of course, we still have till 2016 to avert this disaster.

From your references, the AVC/H.264 Patent List is a 49 page pdf file. Each page shows about 10 to 20 patent numbers, or around 700 by a quick calculation. Interestingly, Apple has only one patent.

But feel free to demonize Apple as the 800lb gorilla in this patent trap. It seems every irrational dweeb is on that band wagon.

This makes no sense to me. Lets run with your thought experiment for a moment. Google release a blinding implementation of VP8 support in Chrome next week, then FF and Opera pick it up and release browser updates the week after. Somehow, content providers decide this is a great idea and they all jump on the VP8 band wagon. How does this hurt Apple?

Apple is a member of the H.264 licensor pool, and gets money every time a licensed encoder or decoder is sold.

What's to stop Apple from adding it to OS X and the iPhone OS along side H.264 and supporting both.

Nothing, that's what we want.

How does this give google some kind of competitive edge over Apple that would make Apple "terrified"?

Apple is fat and happy sitting around having drinks with Microsoft right now, inside the MPEG-LA. Google already has Apple (and everyone else) "terrified" because they have enormous cachet and momentum. Apple and Microsoft exist on cachet and momentum, respectively; take each away from each as appropriate and they are nothing. If nobody bought Windows tomorrow it would all be over but the carving-up for Microsoft; if nobody thought Apple was cool tomorrow, nobody'd buy that either, and Apple would cease to exist in very short order. People think Google is cool. Further, people who think specifically think that Apple is evil over this app approval thing, while Google is taking the Open road with Linux and Java. If more people get to thinking that Apple is evil — a likelihood which could be enhanced by releasing a free and Free codec for HTML5 and announcing that it's being released because Apple and Microsoft (among others) are trying to put the world in a patent trap with H.264 — then Apple will suffer.

They both have full access to H.264 and related tools today, so nothing would change with adoption of VP8: the status quo is maintained. You're just trying to blind people with FUD.

You're blinded by bullshit. Read the list of AVC/H.264 licensors and tell me where Google appears on that list. Youtube is owned by Google. Youtube faces destruction in 2016 when it has to transcode every piece of old video they have, license it at arbitrary terms crafted by MPEG-LA and the licensors, or already be prepared with another video codec. For Google to not either use a codec over which they retain full control, or a codec which is Open and Free (H.264 the format is the former, but not the latter, and H.264 the standard is neither because your use is encumbered by patents which have been promised to explode in the future.

H.264 is not safe. Apple and Microsoft are united in attempting to spread it across the planet. If they were serious about it being an Open Standard suitable for the World Wide Web, and not just in creating the next problem, they'd have promised patent protection for decoders and for the format itself, and let people pay to encode at worst. But for my own part, I do not want to make my own web site depend on any technologies which are encumbered by patents intended to be used for litigation, and I would consider Google amazingly short-sighted to not be addressing this issue. I further believe that if H.264 licensing does not self-destruct in 2016, then it will have been due to the efforts of geeks like me ranting about it endlessly, kind of how we killed DivX (the DVD-rental scheme.) Except odds are against us this time, because we're dealing with the MPEG-LA.

http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensees.aspx
Canonical's currently at number 95.

The amount of profit they make from being part of the licensing pool would amount to a rounding error.

Not if they manage to standardize a video format used by every single browser and streamed by every server in the entire world. There is a time-limited royalty-free license to use these codecs, and then everyone has to pay.

Besides, you've got it wrong, Apple and Microsoft pay for those licenses, they don't profit from them.

Apple and Microsoft both own patents in the MPEG-LA portfolio, so yes, they do profit from them.

From your references, the AVC/H.264 Patent List is a 49 page pdf file. Each page shows about 10 to 20 patent numbers, or around 700 by a quick calculation.

Interestingly, Apple has only one patent.

There are 811 AVC/H.264 licensees and 26 licensors

Apple and Microsoft are licensors along with industrial mega-corps like Mitsubishi Electric, Sony and Toshiba.

Google and Canonical are licensees.

H.264 has tremendous strength simply in OEM support and brand-name consumer tech. There are no significant players missing here.

There are 811 AVC/H.264 licensees and 26 licensors

Apple and Microsoft are licensors along with industrial mega-corps like Mitsubishi Electric, Sony and Toshiba.

Google and Canonical are licensees.

H.264 has tremendous strength simply in OEM support and brand-name consumer tech. There are no significant players missing here.

Microsoft won't allow third-party codecs and/or plugins to do the job for them?

There are 811 licensees of AVC/H.264 video.

The global giants in brand-name consumer hardware production and distribution are all there.

Canonical is there.

If Shuttleworth decides Ubuntu needs H.264 to remain competitive on the desktop, the barrier to installing the codec by default is purely ideological.

http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Documents/AVC_TermsSummary.pdf

Although the H.264 licensing terms appear reasonable, I still prefer a free option.

I have no idea why Firefox still fights against the giant and loses money and time on it. Great, they got hw-accelerated Theora to one single mobile phone. What about all the televisions, other mobile phones, computers, airplanes, PS3, 360, and everything else under the sun that has H.264 hw supported? It's a lost battle.

The number of licensees for AVC/H.264 has passed the 800 mark.

They include - for all practical purposes - every significant player in consumer tech, video production and video distribution in the world.

You could begin, if you like, with

Please check your facts on the licensing dates, they changed in February.

http://www.mpegla.com/main/Pages/Media.aspx

(direct PDF of the press release is here: http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%20LA%20News%20List/Attachments/226/n-10-02-02.pdf )

Please check your facts on the licensing dates, they changed in February.

http://www.mpegla.com/main/Pages/Media.aspx

(direct PDF of the press release is here: http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%20LA%20News%20List/Attachments/226/n-10-02-02.pdf )

Actually, since Apple are pushing for H.264 video (which they part own the patents to AFAIK)

Well, Apple and 25 other organizations, including Microsoft and Sony. Sorry if that takes some of the fun out of your speculation.

Show us the patents or shut up.

I do agree it would be nice of the MPEG LA members who feel that their patents cover Theora would come out and talk about it, it is unlikely that Larry Horn has anything to do with this. MPEG LA only has to do with these patents in terms of licensing them for use with H.264. They almost certainly don't have any responsibilities (or freedom to talk about the situation) when it comes to Theora.

So it's really up to the individual patent holders to come out. I wish they would do so.

Also, "show us the patents" is probably off base too, because the patents are right here.

http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/avc-att1.pdf

What you seem to mean is show us where the infringement lies.

> It would do us all no good if Mozilla did implement H.264 and then got hooked for
> megabucks when the H.264 licensing agreement suddenly requires dollars per instance of
> software decoding H.264.

That licensing agreement already requires such. If Mozilla were to ship an H.264 decoder themselves, they would need to pay $5 million per year (see http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/AVC_TermsSummary.pdf for the terms).

Uhh, didn't you notice that Google does exactly that already? Chrome is completely free, and ships with HTML5 H.264 video support...

Trick is, per-unit royalties are capped at $5M/yr total. Frankly, this is chump change for Google, not to mention Microsoft.

In fact, so far as I can see, it would actually cost them nothing at all, since the cap seems to be company-wide, and not just for a specific product. You can bet Microsoft already hits the cap for Windows 7, and Google probably just pays it as a kind of a "flat fee" so as to permit users to freely redistribute Chrome.

Of course they will support (most probably) only H.264. Microsoft is one of those in patent pool of MPEG-LA for AVC.

It's of course H.264 but for different reasons - Windows 7 has build-in support for H.264, and Theora kind of lost the war already.

Pretty much everyone is on board for H.264. AVC/H.264 Licensees

773 of the biggest names in media and tech. Canonical is on the list. Lockheed Martin is on the list.

Let's not kid ourselves. Apple isn't trying to pull people away from Flash because they're big-hearted. They're pulling people away from Flash because they want to be the gateway to Internet content, via the sweet deal with MPEG LA (who owns the H.264 patent) that will keep other players--especially open source software--out of the market.

"Following is a list of licensors of patents included in the AVC Patent Portfolio License:"

Apple.

Followed by - in alphabetical order - about twenty or so of the biggest names in tech.

Fujitsu. Hitachi. Microsoft. Mitsubishi. NTT. Panasonic. Philips. Samsung. Siemens. Sony. Toshiba. You get the idea. AVC/H.264 Licensors

There are 768 corporate licensees for H.264. Heavyweights, damn near all of them.

AVC/H.264 Licensees

Canonical is on board. Japan is on board. China is on board. 3M. HBO. Honeywell. Lockheed Martin. Nikon. Nintendo....