[whatwg] The issue of interoperability of the <video> element
Geoffrey Sneddon
foolistbar at googlemail.com
Mon Jun 25 07:01:14 PDT 2007
On 25 Jun 2007, at 13:21, Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves wrote:
> According to Wikipedia,
>
> "AT&T is trying to sue companies such as Apple Inc. over alleged
> MPEG-4 patent infringement.[1][2][3]"
>
> I would be fascinated to see a statement from Apple, Inc. regarding
> this.
Seeming they are already under risk from what they already support,
what advantage do Apple get by supporting more codecs, therefore
opening up themselves to further risks?
> It's also quite interesting that different portions of MPEG-4,
> including different sections of video and audio are licensed
> separately, so what this means is that any vendor willing to support
> MPEG-4 for <video> and <audio> has to locate every patent holder and
> pay them.
No, they don't, it all goes through MPEG-LA.
> Oh, and will you look at this, Apple, Inc. holds one the patents! US
> 6,134,243 [4]. So Apple gets money for every single license sold.
> How nice. They are attempting to lock vendors into MPEG-4 and get
> money from licenses in the process. Apple, Inc. is no better than
> Microsoft.
So a company which owns a patent on a standard that can bought and
read at freedom is just as bad as a company which owns a patent on a
standard that has absolutely no public documentation? Also, a large
part of this topic has been around H.264, Apple holds no known
patents affecting H.264.
- Geoffrey Sneddon
More information about the whatwg
mailing list