Fwd: VP8
Gregory Maxwell <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.multimedia.ogg.theora.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Denver Gingerich <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Richard Watts <[email protected]> wrote: >> Obviously, I'd rather hope that google's due diligence was good >> enough that there were no essential patents required for VP8 per se - >> there obviously will be for VP8's use with things like MPEG-2 >> systems - but if it wasn't, I'd much rather have the MPEG-LA's >> non-discriminatory and generally reasonably priced and accessible >> terms than (e.g.) the audio codec peoples' multi-dollar per device >> royalties and 'we'll licence only if you refuse to play any other >> format' terms. > > Do you have a reference for this statement about audio codec licensing > terms? I'd be interested to learn more about it. > It's not a secret: http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/ But I can't agree with the assessment of MPEG-LA as good guys. If they were good guys they wouldn't be spreading FUD about Theora and VP8 to the press-- they'd simply offer their services as a pool assembly service rather than spreading fear about competitors to their pool. They also wouldn't be operating a hardly arms length NPE patent litigation firm (http://www.mobilemediaideas.com/). _______________________________________________ theora mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/theora