[whatwg] Codec mess with <video> and <audio> tags
foolistbar at googlemail.com
Sun Jun 7 10:56:25 PDT 2009
On 7 Jun 2009, at 16:30, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/6/7 <jjcogliati-whatwg at yahoo.com>:
>> There are concerns or issues with all of these:
>> a) a number of large companies are concerned about the possible
>> unintended entanglements of the open-source codecs; a 'deep pockets'
>> company deploying them may be subject to risk here. Google and
>> other companies have announced plans to ship Ogg Vorbis and Theora
>> or are shipping Ogg Vorbis and Theora, so this may not be
>> considered a problem in the future.
> Indeed. There are no *credible* claims of submarine patent problems
> with the Ogg codecs that would not apply precisely as much to *any
> other codec whatsoever*.
> In fact, there are less, because the Ogg codecs have in fact been
> thoroughly researched.
> This claimed objection to Ogg is purest odious FUD, and should be
> described as such at every mention of it. It is not credible, it is a
> blatant and knowing lie.
How is it incredible? Who has looked at the submarine patents? They by
definition are unpublished! Yes, certainly, published patents are well
researched, but this is not the objection that anyone has made to it.
More information about the whatwg