Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MPEG LA Extends H.264 Royalty-Free Period

Posted by timothy on from the now-how-much-would-you-pay? dept.

Sir Homer writes "The MPEG LA has extended their royalty-free license (PDF) for 'Internet Video that is free to end users' until the end of 2016. This means webmasters who are registered MPEG LA licensees will not have to pay a royalty to stream H.264 video for the next six years. However the last patent in the H.264 portfolio expires in 2028, and the MPEG LA has not released what fees, if any, it will charge webmasters after this 'free trial' period is over."

6 of 260 comments (clear)

  1. Data transfer? by FlyingBishop · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How does a patent license allow you to charge for transmitting data over the Internet? I get that the encoder requires a patent license, and the decoder requires a patent license, but sending an encoded file over the Internet? That's just absurd.

    1. Re:Data transfer? by BZ · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > In the EU if i make a hardware player, then yes i need a license for H.264

      See, the thing is.. what makes a hardware player? Is an FPGA programmed to decode H.264 a "hardware player"? What about an FPGA not thus programmed that comes with the software to so program it?

      I'm not quite seeing how one can draw a legal distinction here given that I can't even draw a _technical_ distinction.

  2. A lot of fallout by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've been personally touched by MPEG LA's patent witch hunt. And not in the good way like Kathleen Fent does.

    My brother in law is the CEO of a small LCD monitor company that uses H.264 decoder chips. He buys these chips from a Taiwanese maker who in turn licenses the patent for H.264 decoding from MPEG LA.

    But MPEG LA has been spamming everyone and anyone vaguely connected to H.264 encoding or playback or even (in this case) sending files across the intarweb. He is expected to succeed if MPEG LA ever takes this to court since the patent is already licensed by the chip vendor and his agreement with them covers him under its indemnity clause.

    However this is a really plain-as-day example of how patent trolls are ruining business for everyone.

  3. Re:Nice by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Six years? Six years is a very long time in CODEC evolution. Six years makes computers sixteen times faster. Network connections will be much faster. By 2016, I doubt there'll be many computers around that can't play back VC-2 (based on Dirac, patent free) in use and VC-2 hardware acceleration, which is just starting to be deployed, will be much more widespread. Remember the CODECs we were using six years ago?

    MPEG-1 didn't last six years as a standard for Internet video. Neither did RealVideo. Neither did Sorenson (in QuickTime or Flash containers). I'd be surprised if H.264 does.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  4. HTML5 is a dangerous "standard". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yeah, but it's not encumbered by patents and other legal bullshit.

    Keep in mind that the HTML5 effort is much unlike the past HTML and XHTML standardization efforts. While the past efforts were driven by the W3C, HTML5 is a product of Google, Apple, Opera, Mozilla and other corporations, masquerading as a "community effort" just because their browsers are open source.

    With HTML5 being implemented to suit the needs of media distribution companies like Apple and Google (ie. YouTube) who have shown a propensity towards using DRM and undocumented formats, it's not surprising at all that a better and much more open video standard would be passed over in favor of proprietary, encumbered "alternatives".

    HTML5 will be one of the worst things to hit the Web in years. Sure, it'll let some folks create dinky demos using the canvas element, but it'll also be the platform through which the Googles and Apples of the Internet force DRM and proprietary media technology on basically everyone, thanks to it HTML5 being a "standard".

  5. Re:And even if sucked by Kohlrabi82 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    At the lower bit rate end of the spectrum Theora is not bad

    This is completely wrong, Theora is *escpecially* bad at low bitrates, I recently made a small comparison of Theora/Thusnelda and H264/x264 encoded 1080p videos, both looked very watchable at 4Mbit, but at 2Mbit problems for Theora/Thusnelda started, and at 1Mbit it was just plain awful. 2Mbit Theora/Thusnelda couldn't nearly reach H264/x264 quality at 1Mbit.