Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Offers H.264 Plug-in For Google Chrome
Apparently Firefox was just the beginning: Pigskin-Referee writes "Microsoft has released a Windows Media Player HTML5 Extension for Chrome so as to enable H.264-encoded video on HTML5 by using built-in capabilities available on Windows 7. As you may recall, less than two months ago, Microsoft released the HTML5 Extension for Windows Media Player Firefox Plug-in with the same goal in mind. Even though Firefox and Chrome are big competitors to Microsoft's own Internet Explorer, the software giant has decided Windows 7 users should be able to play back H.264 video even if they aren't using IE9. Here's the current state of HTML5 video: Microsoft and Apple are betting on H.264, while Firefox, Chrome, and Opera are rooting for WebM. Google was actually in favor of both H.264 and WebM up until earlier this month, when the search giant decided to drop H.264 support completely, even though the former is widely used and the latter is not. The company also announced that it would release WebM plugins for Internet Explorer 9 and Safari. Although IE9 supports H.264, excluding all other codecs, Microsoft is making an exception for WebM, as long as the user installs the corresponding codec, and is helping Google ensure the plug-in works properly."
It's not Microsoft's fault that your browser is intentionally not supporting H.264
Yes it is. Microsoft is member of the anti-openness extortion cartel that is blocking Firefox from supporting H.264.
MPEG LA's licensing terms are incompatible with both open standards and open software. They are anti-openness.
MPEG LA is trying to intimidate anyone who would use a competing codec to just use theirs and pay up, by promising to form a patent pool and sue anyone using a competing codec. That is extortion.
MPEG LA is an association between many corporations colluding to suppress competition. That is a cartel.
If you can't dispute any of the above claims, then it is perfectly fair to call MPEG LA an anti-openness extortion cartel. Not everything is biased just because it makes someone sound bad. It's possible that they really are that bad. You need to re-examine some of your beliefs.
The issue isn't over whether a technology is patented at all. The problem is with the royalty requirement, which is incompatible with open source development and distribution. Firefox is 100% royalty-free right now. Implementing H.264 would be completely unprecedented in Firefox.