[whatwg] on codecs in a 'video' tag.
singer at apple.com
Wed Mar 28 17:23:45 PDT 2007
At 18:14 +0300 28/03/07, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>On Mar 27, 2007, at 23:40, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>>I would be curious for the reasons that 3GPP has taken the requirement
>>of vorbis out of the spec. Was that a decision based on technical
>>reasons and could you please explain what these technical reasons
>First: I don't know about what goes on inside 3GPP.
>However, about one 3GPP stakeholder with significant clout:
>When Nokia guys show up Open Source meetings, the FAQ about Maemo is
>why they don't ship Vorbis support. The manager of the Maemo
>operation has said that Nokia is afraid of Vorbis having some
>Fraunhofer-owned stuff in it after all, so Nokia does not want to
>ship Vorbis support until their own people have vetted Vorbis for
>patent issues. It is entirely unclear to me if they are actively
>That's the stated reason.
>In addition, it might be relevant that *all* the companies that have
>patents in the AAC patent portfolio are 3GPP members. If everyone
>used Vorbis, the value of the AAC patents would be diluted both in
>terms of licensing revenue and as MAD warheads mounted on defensive
I think the first reason is more likely. The dominant players in
3GPP are network operators and equipment vendors, and the AAC patent
owners are (to my impression) very much both a minority and less
The AAC patent owners are, for the most part, organizations that do
R&D for license -- that's their business, and it's perfectly
respectable. They develop good technology and understand that
without licenses they don't have a business. Just my personal
opinion, you understand; I don't see anything wrong with this
business model, and indeed I think it benefits the industry. (There
are other business models around patents which we need not elaborate,
which I dare say many of us would have a harder time defending).
More information about the whatwg