[whatwg] Codec mess with <video> and <audio> tags

jjcogliati-whatwg at yahoo.com jjcogliati-whatwg at yahoo.com
Sun Jun 7 15:03:51 PDT 2009

--- On Sun, 6/7/09, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [whatwg] Codec mess with <video> and <audio> tags
> To: whatwg at lists.whatwg.org
> Date: Sunday, June 7, 2009, 9:30 AM
> 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*.

I fully agree that any codec can have the possibility that there may
be unknown patents that read on them.  

> In fact, there are less, because the Ogg codecs have in
> fact been
> thoroughly researched.

I have looked for evidence of that there has been any patent research on 
the Ogg codecs.  I assume that Google, Redhat and others have at least 
done some research, but I have yet to find any public research
information.  I probably am just missing the pointers to this, so could
you please tell me where I can find results of this research? 

Thank you.

> 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.

More information about the whatwg mailing list