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.
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.
I don't know what it will take to get people straight on this. H.264 is open and is a standard, but patented.
In practice it's the same thing as you still cannot implement H.264 encoding or decoding without a license.
But Google supports only the WebM (VP8) and Ogg Theora codecs.
Wrong. It still plays HTML5 video that is H.264.
Spot on - they only announced the intention to remove it; however H.264 HTML5 video still plays just fine in Chrome.
Additionally, they're only removing it from the desktop Chrome browser - not Android. When asked about H.264 support in Android, they specifically drew a (rather artificial IMHO) distinction between the desktop and mobile platforms.
#DeleteChrome
To lawfully use x264 and FFmpeg without a license from MPEG-LA, I'd have to 1. move out of the United States and other countries where software patents are enforced, and 2. move all my customers out of the United States and other countries where software patents are enforced.
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.
|| 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.
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.