Slashdot Mirror
The Looming Video Codec Fight
itwbennett writes "With both Apple and Microsoft promoting HTML5 standards, you'd think that there would be joy in software freedom land. But instead there's another fight brewing. 'While it is true that HTML5 video is a step in the right direction, we also have to take into consideration the underlying codecs used to deliver the video content,' says blogger Brian Proffitt. The problem, says Proffitt, is that Microsoft and Apple's browsers will be supporting only the proprietary H.264 video codec by default. But Google supports only the WebM (VP8) and Ogg Theora codecs. 'So, basically, if Ogg Theora content starts making a dent in Apple and Microsoft's bottom line, or that of the MPEG LA's, then expect to see a lawsuit or two headed Google's way after 2015,' concludes Proffitt."
Seriously, MPEG LA is going to create a new pool to try and kill WebM, I'm sure they're already working on it. The question is whether or not we're going to let a bunch of patent trolls control future development of the web. Standardizing around a standard that requires licensing fees is the wrong way to go.
Why is there no mention of Firefox? Are they assuming that Mozilla is being stupid enough to kill itself before Firefox hits version 87 (approximately 1 year from now)
Seriously, who gives a shit? Patents are for lawyers. FFMPEG will play just about anything.
But Google supports only the WebM (VP8) and Ogg Theora codecs.
Wrong. It still plays HTML5 video that is H.264.
Personally, I say bring it. If indeed WebM and/or Ogg Theora are in violation then they need to fix the violation or get out of the video business. The whole premise that this is wrong is based on the notion that patents on software is wrong which is idiotic IMHO.
I don't know what it will take to get people straight on this. H.264 is open and is a standard, but patented. WebM isn't a standard, but isn't patented.
They certainly make a lot of noise of how they are forming it and how patent holders have been identified. About a press release every three months, and no concrete facts. The pool has been textbook FUD so far.
The $25-PC Raspberry Pi project is struggling about which codecs to include right. Even at a few bucks or less a codec, that's a huge cost when you try to hit $25 for a functional PC.
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
There have been a bunch of posts so far, and none of them were 1, 2, 3, ???, 4 Profitt?!
For shame Slashdot, for shaaaaaaame.
Alright...and now for the grammar Nazis.
Who's implementation of this new standard will define what is considered the standard when people try to conform to the standard? That is to say...who's standard will become the most standard standard?!
The Patent Pool isn't to kill WebM, it is to protect those who choose to use WebM from litigation.
Maybe if Apple, Microsoft and Google provided a similar Patent Pool to their mobile developers, for a nominal fee, we wouldn't see all these Patent Trolls. A licence to a patent pool is better than paying Protection Money to a dozen different extortionists.
And, hopefully FUD is what it will remain. But, as long as they're unwilling to sign over royalty free use for the h.264 pool, then we need to be using something else. It's not acceptable, IMHO, for standards like this to be pay for play.
The patentability of software is basically flawed and has no place in any knowledge driven economy, but unfortunately this is the reality we're saddled with for the time being.
Nevertheless, I'm getting pretty tired of companies using software patents as a tactical weapon against competition. If I could introduce a single new law, is that any given company's patent claims would have not be valid unless they were exercised at the earliest possible opportunity. No waiting for years until your competition starts threatening your bottom line before you unleash your army of lawyers. Either they would deplete their resources against every single target out there that may or may not be a threat later on, or they would forfeit any claims they might have.
Sure, there would be loopholes, and I can think of a few right now, but it would still be fun to watch.
Kill WebM, extort money for using WebM, it goes the same way ultimately. As long as people are required to pay for the use of the codec, it can't be in Firefox or any other free browser without somebody infringing on the patent. Which is the problem.
I was referring to the patent pool that MPEG LA was trying to put together, although in retrospect that was probably not at all clear.
a standard that requires licensing fees
Only in the US. In places where software patents are a load of hogwash (e.g. europe) h.264 and VP8 are equally open.
The battle between h.264 and Theora has existed for over a year and this article doesn't add any new insight to the table. The OP is full of name dropping and was submitted by someone at IT World but doesn't even throw in a "full disclosure" statement. We get it, Brian Proffitt wrote a stale article for you and your buddy Soulskill hooked you up again...
Which works great, as long as you have no intention of ever releasing your website or program on a international level.
You forgot - MS wants to eliminate plugins in Windows 8.
No plugins, then no plugin for open codecs.
Why would anyone still use Theora? VP8 is twice as good in terms of compression : quality. The development of Ptalarbvorm also seems a bit stalled, I guess they themselves don't see much sense in it anymore.
Except for the fact that there are already websites and programs that are international that use patented software but don't pay royalties?
It's like the old days where gif died cause cmpuserve owned it
What are you talking about? Software patents are fully legal in Europe:
http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/german-court-declares-software-patents-legal-7211
3 years ago I bought a car radio which plays ogg. Life was beautiful because the sound is better for the same file size vis-à-vis the mp3 alternative.
By that time I learned about insinuations about radio makers not advertising ogg support due to fears of being sued for patent violation -- which the ogg people firmly denied, citing that since the ogg codec existed for more than 10 years, obviously it didn't violate any patents -- or else someone would have already complained.
Now history repeats with video. A lot of smearing free solutions and veiled threats about (hidden) patents and companies prefering to settle rather than litigate.
Meanwhile we consumers cannot get the better sounding solution, but must use what pays someone bills. That sucks.
Good luck making sure that no more than 100,000 people receive a copy of your program. That's even fewer people than, say, Jehovah's Witnesses think will go to heaven.
That's only Germany, and the final legality of that declaration is still unclear.
The European Patent Convention clearly excludes computer programs from patentability, as seen in Article 52 (2) c.
However, the European Patent Office has flatly ignored this paragraph, and granted many software patents.
The debate continues.
Why would anyone still use Theora? VP8 is twice as good in terms of compression : quality.
What's the relative computational complexity of decoders for the two formats? I've been told Theora is comparable to MPEG-4 Part 2 (e.g. DivX) and VP8 is comparable to H.264. When trying to play back video on existing hardware, such as a video game console, it helps to know that you can hit the 24 fps target without overheating.
a standard that requires licensing fees
Only in the US. In places where software patents are a load of hogwash (e.g. europe) h.264 and VP8 are equally open.
You're still paying for it when you purchase a gadget with the codec.
"I'm not much interested in interoperability. I want substitutability. I want to be able to throw your software out."
Hmm... that sounds like the US: having a law on the books but blatantly ignoring it.
Is anybody behind these "free" codecs willing to indemnify the implementers against submarine patents that surface once the codecs gain enough market-share to be worth litigation? There's no way anyone can know if Ogg, Theora, WebM etc are not infringing (or can be alledged to infringing) somebody's IP until it's tested in court. And even then... I note that Apple has been to bat for its developers against patent trolls. Anyone else?
Have you any idea how these pirates work? MPEG-LA is not a charity, its a business with an extremely predatory model. Collect patents together and then try and collect rent from developers.
If WebM needs protection, google will protect it. Nobody is asking MPEG-:LA to pool patents to sieze licencing rights to something they didnt invent (They didn't invent ANYTHING they licence out by the way, MPEG-LA is not MPEG. They just exploit the fact you cant trademark acronyms).
Patent pools are incompatible with free/open source. If someone forces mozilla to licence a patent, guess what only mozilla can use that code and its not free software no more. If parents cover webkit, its not free software no more.
We might well end up with a scenario that the only browsers distributable with linux are those without video.
A world without firefox, VLC , and so on is a world without free access to user created content, and that ultimately is a spike in the heart of free speech.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
As long as people are required to pay for the use of the codec, it can't be in Firefox or any other free browser without somebody infringing on the patent.
Firefox can use patented codecs (like H.264 and WebM) just fine. You mentioned FUD before, but what exactly do you call your false claims?
derp
Sigh... I'm not very optimistic about the software patent situation. The only bright spot is the very long view. Companies are patenting absolutely anything they can get away with right now. While this poses a problem for short term software development, I wonder if this will have ramifications for long term development. That is... once all the "core technology" patents have expired, they'll be free to use henceforth.
There are likely natural limitations to how much audio or video data can be compressed. Once these patents expire, it will probably occur at a point in time when any incremental advancements in the next codec don't render enough of an advantage given the likely increases in network speeds. I think we've already hit that point with audio encoding - for nearly everyone, mp3 is now good enough and small enough that more sophisticated codecs don't really matter anymore, even if they marginally improve compression/quality ratios.
Scant comfort, I know, as 17 years is a hell of a long time to wait for things to be freed up. Still, it's nice to know these companies won't have an eternal lock on these methods.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
If you want to 'take the moral high ground' to the extreme, then you just have to recognize that there are going to be plenty of times when you don't get your way because no one else cares about your irrational response to what you perceive as a problem in the natural order of things.
This will not be one of those times. Also, you're wrong about everything else, particularly your attempts to redefine open and paint anyone who disagrees with you as a cult member. You're delusional if you think you're litany changes the fact that software patents are the opposite of open.
Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
|| Patent pools are incompatible with free/open source.
|I'm sorry, thats flat out false is most ways.
Actually its very true.
You, mine friend, need to learn how patent pools work and how it stops anyone from freely distribute the code using GPL.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/stallman-mec-india.html
Given that GPL is the most used license for open source software - patent pools are very bad.
Just saying it like it are.
I don't know where you get this impression, as the MPEG-LA isn't really even "free as in beer".... or at least you need to check their licenses out a little better before you make such statements.
The problem is that the royalties are sent downstream, and represent barriers to entry in the form that developers of products have a minimum price they must sell software or devices simply due to how the licensing scheme is set up. It is also a protection racket where content authors or even patent holders (in the case of MPEG-LA royalties) almost never get anything from the money collected. Most of it goes into the overhead of simply operating the MPEG-LA.
If you are selling a high-end audio editing software suite or a commercial MP3 player, the royalty payments for the MPEG-LA really are inconsequential.... but they aren't free.
Most significantly, their licensing terms are completely incompatible with something like an "open source" software project, particularly with the GPL. It isn't so much that the GPL or "open source" licenses are explicitly prohibited, but that the royalty collection system simply isn't in place for that kind of software or product. Even building an MP3 player or a hand-held computer with video playback with an Arduino home-brew kit where you publish the source code and schematics is incompatible with anything under the terms of the MPEG-LA.
Simply put, you can't call that an "open license" other than it doesn't discriminate against multi-national companies wishing to produce commercial products using formats claimed under licenses offered by the MPEG-LA. They are no different than ASCAP, but then again I'm not a big fan of that organization either.
Is anybody behind those standard codecs willing to indemnify the implementers against submarine patents that surface once the codecs gain enough market-share to be worth litigation?
And I can smash newborns' heads with my bare fists just fine, that doesn't mean it's legal.
You want to play video with patented encoding, you need to have licensed codec somewhere in the line from browser and plugins to OS shared codecs, and someone needs to pay for that license.
i understand it is mpeg la's ip. some hardware/software is licensed to decode it. other hardware/software is licensed to encode it. how is it different than every other codec?
...
Oh, the situation with MPEG-LA is worse than that. If you capture video on any kind of MPEG camera, even high-end "professional" models, you've now got a video that is encumbered and you can't use it for ANY commercial purpose without a license from MPEG-LA.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
The Patent Pool isn't to kill WebM, it is to protect those who choose to use WebM from litigation.
Spit that cool aid out fast! They cannot possibly protect from litigation, only accept payments to not litigate themselves. Anyone who chooses not to toss their patent into the pool can still crawl out from the woodwork at any time (for mpeg, vp8, or anything else).
MPEG-LA's pool has one purpose and one purpose only. It is a desperate search for anything they can use to screw people who choose to avoid their fees on mpeg and h.264.
There are two codecs out there (theora and vp8) that are freely licensed and that pisses them off. Keep in mind that when MPEG-LA claims all codecs are covered by patents, it's a combination of propaganda and wishful thinking on their part. They have so far failed to produce one that covers theora or VP8 (and they have certainly been looking). Their stated mission is to find a way to poison the well so they can sell bottled water.
Videopress, the video hosting arm of Wordpress, offers main video encoding in h.264 & also an Ogg Theora view or download option, both are available.
If you have a free Wordpress.com blog, you can buy Videopress & once you've uploaded your video to the Wordpress Blog, play the stream in any other web site with a Flash player. Gets around the Youtube 15 minute limitation as well.
Nico M, London, GB.
The Patent Pool isn't to kill WebM, it is to protect those who choose to use WebM from litigation.
Sure, but protection from whom? From themselves perhaps?
'The president of the FFII has brought to people’s attention this good report from The Prior Art blog, saying that “MPEG-LA’s CEO Larry Horn also heads MobileMedia, a patent troll holding no less than 122 patents bought to Nokia and Sony” '
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Normally this situation is pretty cut and dry. Unfortunately, the problem here is that H.264 is substantially better technology than WebM, it's not clear that WebM is not trampling on MPEG-LA patents, Google is not indemnifying WebM users against it, and Ogg Theora is noticeably worse than WebM.
I am obviously in favor of eliminating software patents, and thereby eliminating the problem of patent trolls like MPEG-LA. I am also obviously in favor of open standards. But this is not like most software where we can just round up some of the gang and knock out a new better thing in a few weeks. There are not a lot of people who can design a modern, performant, high-quality video codec, open source or no (notably, both Google and Xiph have managed to do a shitty job). To do so within our legal constraints really might be asking too much.
Since it looks like we don't get to live in the world we want to live in, we have to ask ourselves which of the worlds we can have we would like. I don't relish the idea of having inferior technology foisted on me any more than the idea of closed standards. But it's looking like we're going to have to pick one, and I don't think when it comes down to it I'd rather have the inferior technology.
As long as people are required to pay for the use of the codec, it can't be in Firefox or any other free browser without somebody infringing on the patent. Which is the problem.
Video shouldn't have to be in the browser. Every modern OS has a perfectly usable media framework for apps to use and in the vast majority of cases it already contains an H264 codec or permits one to be obtained.
I love how the GP says:
"but it fits pretty accurately for everyone not part of the RMS cult"
And you retort by linking to a RMS rant.
On the other hand from a practical point of view, if you don't actually sell your software (e.g, it is distributed freely like say libx264), you are likely under the radar regardless of how many copies you don't sell
Even for a product comparable to, say, Winamp?
According to the HTML5 test page, Safari (on OS X) supports WebM as well as H.264.
This may be different on iOS of course, due to decoding issues.
In places where software patents are a load of hogwash (e.g. europe)
Sadly that is not 100% true. While software patents should not exist in europe you can still patent a system containing software designed to run on some broadly specified piece of hardware. So the software itself is not patented but you cant run it on a device with, for example, at least 3mb memory and a cpu without infringing on the patent (there was a court case about one of microsofts FAT filesystems a while back using this logic).
He is writing whatever master Steve Jobs wants. After all, he is Jobs' bitch.
Anyway. The point is that do not expect rational discussion with somebody like him or other apple fanbois.
So given all my media is already in h.264 when it comes off the device, what's the rationale behind getting it in webM/vp8 without any proprietary license? Never mind that h.264 is technically superior and has hardware support in all my devices, and webM is open to being shafted due to patent infringement...
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Thankfully, out judges and politicians are still learning this Art.
In places where software patents are a load of hogwash (e.g. europe) h.264 and VP8 are equally open
Guffaw. The problem with your logic is that codec patents aren't software patents. Maybe you should actually look at the list of patents.
If you don't want to use Mozilla, you are free to use another browser, without any averse effect. But if H.264 becomes the standard video on the Web, you cannot just choose another format. Providers can't because people likely will not have that other codec installed, and possibly cannot even install it. Users cannot, because if a video is H.264, there's no way to watch it except with a H.264 codec. You cannot even write your own H.264 codec without a license, because unlike copyright, patents also cover clean-room reimplementations.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Apart from Microsoft there is no one who offers indemnification, not Apple (they offered to pay legal fees in the Lodsys case, which is something entirely different) and certainly not MPEG-LA ... a WebM developer is as safe from litigation as a H.264 developer in the end, in both cases they are protected by the commercial interest of the parties behind the standards without any outright guarantees.
As for whether it's clear that WebM is not trampling in MPEG-LA patents ... over a year without a single patent number being mentioned is clear enough for me.
Perfect solution: ignore the USA
In order to ignore the USA, I'd first have to leave the USA. Which country do you recommend, and how should I qualify for lawful resident status?
It'd actually be very surprising if WebM did infringe any MPEG-LA patents; it was carefully designed to avoid doing so, and this shouldn't be that hard to do because a lot of the patents in question are very narrow. The reason they're so narrow is that because of the MPEG standards body's stance of patent-neutrality, the original patent holder can submit technologies to the standard that infringe on their patents and the MPEG Group won't modify them to work around the patents no matter how trivial it is to do so. Narrow patents are more easily defended against prior art, hence most of them are just broad enough to catch all standards-compliant implementations.
3 things :
1) linux doesn't (well, not a legal one anyway). It's not free.
2) neither does windows xp
3) even in the cases where such is provided, they're like all other "standard" implementations : incompatible
In fairness ... you might list the full steps from the MPEG-LA's business plans. It goes like this :
1) bring together experts, implementors (on their payroll), testers, ..., and negotiate for years with all sorts of different companies and government agencies until you have enough investment to get a quality video compression format
2) publish all the products of step 1 openly, for everyone to read and use. Write books about it (yes, plural, we're talking dozens)
3) profit
Step 3, the "predatory" part, is kind of a necessity for this whole thing to work ... And you could just as well argue that people using this product without compensating MPEG-LA is just as predatory. H264 is something that you don't write in an afternoon (or with 100 developers in a year's time, for that matter).
Seriously, I'd LOVE to see Firefox linked against libx264 for HTML5 video, but that just isn't going to happen until this patent malarkey gets fixed. If this shit went away, everyone could go back to to H.264 support and we could consign WebM and Theora to the "open, but not useful" bin of history.
MPEG-LA did invest kind of a huge amount of money to create h264 in the first place. WebM, is partly based on that work. Work which was shared, but not freely shared. See here for example, note what software is used for WebM decoding : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VP8#Encoding.
So what's the big deal here ? MPEG-LA advanced the state of the art in compression codecs, by a lot, and they invested money in that project. How is it unfair of them to expect compensation from people using that work, whether that is through using WebM or h264 ?
Anyway, the point is moot, since anything that needs video codecs still needs h264. Only when that changes (which won't be until blue-ray is forgotten in the dustbin of history) will there be a problem : if you buy a license for your software to decode h264, you're perfectly welcome to use that same license for WebM as far as MPEG-LA is concerned.
God, how utterly shocking: the only winners from a new technology are lawyers. My world will go half deaf from being thus turned onto its ear.
Development is programmable; Discovery is not programmable. (Fuller)
I thought, in VERY general terms:
x264 was to h.264 as
Xvid was to divX.....
open source >>> proprietary
Is the MPEG-LA willing to indemnify H.264 licensees against non-MPEG-LA submarine patents that surface? No. So why the double-standards?
Syllable : It's an Operating System
Given that GPL is the most used license for open source software
Most OSS uses some sort of BSD-style license.
2. DiVX amongst others offers a H264 codec for nothing. Perhaps if demand for a Linux codec were so great they'd even supply one of those.
3. There are very precise definitions of what H264 should do at various profiles and levels. If a particular codec didn't meet those requirements it could be blacklisted.
I have no objection to VP8 being the "default" codec but to artificially deny other codecs even when they're sitting right there in the OS is absurd. Especially H264 which is the defacto format for hardware devices and will continue to be regardless of VP8 or not.
It's also not clear that H.264 is not trampling on Goole (On2) patents and MPEG-LA is not idemnifying MPEG-LA licensees against it (or anyone else) either. So what's your point?
Syllable : It's an Operating System
So, reverse engineer H.264, open sorcerers.
Many tools for the same job. Blocked here, circumvent there, get everywhere you want to go. Outta my way, only-one-way-to-do-things developers. On the web, I'm in charge.
Indeed, the arguments against open source browsers using system frameworks or codecs for non-free formats just don't hold water. I feel the main reason Mozilla refuses to allow this is politically motivated. Same for Google, although they're pushing their own format. Neither of them want to see H.264 or any other commercial format become the de-facto standard because the folks at Mozilla don't believe people have the right to choose non-free software and the folks at Google want the world to use their shit. I love H.264 because it gives me awesome quality in small files and it "just works" across a myriad of my devices. My iPad cannot play VP8 or Theora and VLC on my Macs don't play OGG files very well. Hell I even tried using VLC on my jailbroken iPad. If VP8 or another "free" format had the hardware and software support of H.264 then I would have no problem using it.
1) please look up how valid the FAT patent was in Europe : perfectly valid. For most non-Chinese Asian countries software patents are valid and China is just a matter of time (problem is enforcement, not so much the law) ... which requires you, amongst other things, to never use any other player than their own, if you think that's a better deal, go ahead
2) I believe DiVX has a proper license, and to get their implementation you have to agree to their EULA
You might have mentioned flash as well, since that's at least a workable solution for websites
3) if that were true every implementation except the win7 and ffmpeg one should be blacklisted (specifically the divx one). Browser makers don't like to have bugs "this video works on win2k, but not on winxp" type bugs which are unavoidable when using the OS's codecs. It also adds complexity to the user's experience because they will need to track down the correct codec for their own system. Google is pretty adamant about avoiding that (and their browser is much better for it)
H.264 isn't proprietary. It's an open standard, it's just not free. You have to license it, but there is nothing proprietary about it. It was designed and built by many contributors and it's a ratified standard. WebM (VP8) and Ogg Theora are great, but they're not going to win a codec fight. And who says HTML5 has to have a built-in codec? All HTML5 needs to do is define a video type/tag and whatever OS the browser is running on will handle the video playback. Also, who says only one video format should be supported? True, most sites are only going to put up H.264, but that doesn't mean other formats can't or shouldn't be available. Why are there always these fights with people thinking there should be only one way to skin a cat?
2) From the DivX website - "The DivX Plus® Codec Pack includes everything you need to play DivX® or MKV files in third-party applications, like Windows Media Player.". Or in a web browser assuming the browser bothered to use what was available to it.
3) The fact is that a browser could maintain a whitelist / blacklist of codecs and if any particular codec vendor wished to extricate themselves from a blacklist, or get onto the whitelist the browser vendor could provide a mechanism to do it. Heck, the browser could one step further and treat a video tag as a specialized NPAPI plugin that declares what containers & codecs it supported and implementing a particular scripting API and callback. Supply the VP8 plugin with the browser and then let the vendors implement additional video plugins in any way they saw fit.
The fact is that browser have chosen to artificially limit the usefulness of video tag and it sucks.
Bzzz. Wrong. MPEG-LA demands license fees from anyone in Europe too.
The big issue with a codec "war" isn't really that some browsers might not support a certain video format out of the box.
The big issue is Microsofts intention of not allowing plugins to the IE-version that will ship with Windows 8.
This means that any site that offers online video will be forced to use H264 as a lowest common denominator if they want any substantial market.
Other browsers will be possible to extend to support formats that they don't support as standard.
IE will not.
In other words, the "war" has probably already been won and H264 is the winner.
One wonders if this is one of the reasons behind Microsofts "no-plugins allowed" design of IE 10 Metro.
that I can use freely. Oh, it doesn't give me anything other than the right to look at the code because it's patented?
So I guess patent pools are likewise hostile to BSD.
Because there's no reason to require a patent on a video codec or require that people sign off for it. But they do, so I guess the main reason is political. Apple refuse to free the patent for political reasons. Same for Windows. Neither of them want to see Open Source become a viable competitor. Apple, for example, want people to use their shit.
You love H264 because you don't have to sign a license for it. Mozilla and Google would. "It just works" fails on Windows XP and similar problems with Ogg encoding on Apple iPods: they don't want to use a free codec. Why? At least they don't have to pay for it.
VP8 does have hardware support like H264 does. Apple, however, refuse to allow such free codecs access.
The key word is try.
Mozilla can pay for the license out of their $100M annual revenue; they just don't want to. Free software martyrdom is a choice; it's not some law of nature.
I agree that it is good that patents will expire. That said, they last longer than 17 years in the US (and in plenty of other countries they last 20 years). But it will be awhile before they are finished. For example MP3 (and MPEG-1 that MP3 is a part of) will not be done till at least 2015 (and the draft standard came out in 1991), MPEG-2 is at least 2018 and H.264 is 2027. By that time, there will probably be some 3D video codec that everyone wants, so we still will have to deal with software patents.
http://www.osnews.com/story/24954/US_Patent_Expiration_for_MP3_MPEG-2_H_264
Ah, but that is why software patents are even more insidious than copyright restrictions; you can infringe a software patent without even being aware of doing it. A clean-room implementation does nothing to solve this.