[Linux-aus] Fwd: Ogg Vorbis and Theora removed from HTML5
mike at mtgambier.net
Sun Dec 16 19:41:18 UTC 2007
On Sunday 16 December 2007 22:24:34 David Newall wrote:
> Mike Lampard wrote:
> > I find the idea of 'additional patent risk' somewhat amusing, coming from
> > the parties involved, even if valid. I'm probably mistaken, but I
> > believe Apple licence the Sorensen codec from a 3rd party, .mov is
> > basically a container for mpeg[1-4], and I suspect that few if any modern
> > MS codecs are developed in-house. Possibly a silly question but IANAL -
> > I suppose they'd have protection from any possible patent infringement by
> > those third-parties via the licence/royalty agreements?
> Well, yes, probably they do pay appropriate royalties. Understand that
> patents are usually claimed for compression, not decompression, so
> there's no issue with displaying compressed files, but there is an issue
> with their creation.
I recall a discussion some years ago on one of the media-player devel lists
discussing software patents re codecs, and it came to a similar conclusion
iirc. The reason for the (poorly phrased) question was to hopefully gain
some insight on how any open codec might be put forward without
that 'additional patent risk' to those parties involved.
Anyway, this list is probably the wrong forum for such discussion.
> W3C want browsers to contain codecs for which
> anyone can freely create content.
> > If so, how would Ogg be any different? Xiph have stated repeatedly that
> > Ogg has no patent encumbrances, and the spec is in the public domain.
> > Surely that would immunise any company using their tech?
> Ogg's creators reputedly
>m-html5-an-outrageous-disaster/> took great care to ensure their technology
> would not violate any
> patents, researching the issue before code was written, explicitly to
> avoid submarine patents <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_patent>.
Thanks for the info all, and to Janet for poking this cat :)
More information about the linux-aus