<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Mike Lampard wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:200712162154.52431.mike@mtgambier.net" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
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. W3C want browsers to contain codecs for
which anyone can freely create content.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:200712162154.52431.mike@mtgambier.net" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Ogg's creators <a
href="http://rudd-o.com/archives/2007/12/11/removal-of-ogg-vorbis-and-theora-from-html5-an-outrageous-disaster/">reputedly</a>
took great care to ensure their technology would not violate any
patents, researching the issue before code was written, explicitly to
avoid <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_patent">submarine
patents</a>.<br>
</body>
</html>