[whatwg] The issue of interoperability of the <video> element
singer at apple.com
Mon Jun 25 08:17:20 PDT 2007
At 13:21 +0100 25/06/07, Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves wrote:
>According to Wikipedia,
>"AT&T is trying to sue companies such as Apple Inc. over alleged
>MPEG-4 patent infringement."
>I would be fascinated to see a statement from Apple, Inc. regarding this.
I regret that we (like most companies) cannot
comment on possible pending litigation
(fascinating as some of these cases are). Sorry.
>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
Yes, video and audio are separate; but there are
also pools that simplify the position.
>Oh, and will you look at this, Apple, Inc. holds one the patents! US
>6,134,243 . So Apple gets money for every single license sold.
It's nice that you have done the research and
found what we are doing with our patents. Or are
>How nice. They are attempting to lock vendors into MPEG-4
Pardon? We use it and are happy when others do.
*We* are not asking more. It's not us who are
proposing any lock or mandate; you might check
the Ogg community for that suggestion. Also, you
might wonder whether licensing of standards is a
net income or cost for us.
>money from licenses in the process. Apple, Inc. is no better than
And Ivo is no better than Sylvia. This isn't a
very helpful comparison. (Actually, I know
Sylvia but regret that I don't think I have ever
More information about the whatwg