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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You'll need to explain that in more detail. Most people that I know who are in the software industry (myself included) take a diametrically-opposed view of software patents.
... patenting the mere idea is another, and that is very wrong.
Furthermore, even if (and it's a big 'if') software patents have any real benefit to anyone but anti-competitive corporate sociopaths such as Apple Computer, the way the law and the United States Patent Office are handling them is an abomination. Inventions are an expression of an idea: patenting the expression is one thing
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
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.
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...
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.
Are they assuming that Mozilla is being stupid enough to kill itself before Firefox hits version 87 (approximately 1 year from now)
I look forward to that. Then when I'm using Firefox 87, and I see someone using IE9 or IE10 (if it's out then), I can tell them they should use Firefox 87 instead. When they ask what's better about it, I can tell them "IE only goes up to 10. Firefox goes up to 87!".
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.
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.
The issue with GIF wasn't even Compuserve, but rather some patent trolls at Unisys who discovered that they held a patent on the LZW compression algorithm. Unisys went to Compuserve with a legal threat, but also a licensing scheme where they and their customers could be absolved of past and future infringement if they would submit to the license.... and they capitulated.
In fairness to Compuserve, the developers who created the GIF standard intended it to be patent and royalty free. Their mistake was picking up an ACM Journal and discovering the LZW algorithm when they were trying to establish the format, thus adopting that algorithm into the standard. Typically at the time, algorithms published in such a manner were considered "in the public domain"... or at least assumed so if you were formally publishing how they were working in an internationally recognized journal of that nature. Certainly in the article where this algorithm appeared there was no mention of intellectual property other than a copyright on the article itself. Software patents were presumed to be something you would do to something that you also protected via trade secrets and deliberately tried to keep from your competitors except for a begrudging filing with the USPTO that was usually obfuscated enough that you couldn't really figure the algorithm out from the patent application anyway.
It should be noted that IBM also seemed to have a patent on LZW algorithm, so the claim by Unisys could have been challenged from multiple fronts. The problem was that nobody wanted to take them on so it was either ignored or people capitulated to Unisys.
The largest problem with the GIF format was the issue that web browsers had adopted the GIF standard as a de facto image standard and the only universal image format across multiple operating systems and browsers that displayed images. JPEG images were starting to come into use, but there are limitations on JPEG images and it wasn't nearly so universal. Furthermore, most image editing software at the time Unisys started to demand royalty payments supported the GIF standard.... in part because it was thought to be patent and royalty free.
This stands out because it was one of the first software patents that really impacted a broad swath of software developers and pretty much hit nearly every internet user at about the same time. Few companies are willing to let such "submarine patents" languish without enforcement any more because too much money can be made through enforcement before the concept becomes essentially an international standard. Unisys got lucky after a fashion too, as they certainly didn't contribute to the development of the GIF standard.
In terms of "official standard", I guess that is in the eye of the beholder. I do believe that the W3C did archive the GIF standard and provided links to Compuseve's documents on the format as a recommended image format for web browsers before the patent issue hit the fan. It certainly was hard to avoid the use of GIFs even if you tried, and was a pretty universal image format even before web browsers were created.
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.
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.