[whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims
ian at hixie.ch
Thu Dec 13 19:09:04 PST 2007
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Shannon wrote:
> Arguing the definition of "proprietary" and "standards" is irrelevant.
> Neither has any bearing on the problem which is that in 2010 the MPEG-LA
> (of which Nokia is a member) will impose fees on all use of h.264 on the
> Internet equivalent to those of 'free television'. As near as I can tell
> that will mean all websites serving h.264 content will be liable for
> fees of between $2,500 - $10,000 USD per annum. This makes it
> inappropriate for any public standard and makes other technical and
> legal comparisons between Ogg and h.264 irrelevant. x264 is a nice
> program but it is doubtful it is exempt from these fees nor is the
> content it produces or the websites that host them.
Again, as far as I can tell nobody is actually suggesting requiring H.264.
I don't think it is productive to really discuss whether H.264 would be a
possible codec at this time, since it clearly isn't.
> The ONLY issue here is about the inclusion of Ogg as a SUGGESTION (not
> requirement) and the ONLY argument against the format is that it *might*
> be subject to submarine patents - however since this applies to EVERY
> video codec and even HTML5 itself it is also irrelevant.
No, the issue is about finding a codec that everyone will implement. To
that end, Theora is not an option, since we have clear statements from
multiple vendors that they will not implement Theora.
Again, as I noted in this e-mail:
I would please like to ask everyone participating in this discussion to
focus on the future and on how we can move forward.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg