

Royalty-free MPEG video codec to up the ante for Google's WebM/VP8 - FlorianMueller
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/02/royalty-free-mpeg-video-coding-standard.html

======
ZeroGravitas
If you leave Google conspiracy theories out of consideration it should be
obvious that Opera, Mozilla and the FSF (amongst others in the WebM supporters
list: <http://www.webmproject.org/about/supporters/>) don't actually care
about WebM in itself, they support free software/open source/open web
friendly, royalty-free formats. But it's not just lack of royalties alone,
they have to be useful too, so the more viable in the market the better, given
the basic requirements are met.

That's why they supported Theora, and now prioritise WebM, and make clear
they're happy to support any new codecs that meet their needs. Examining the
new MPEG proposal from their point of view would be interesting.

For example, why is it better than just waiting for MPEG1/2 which already has
great free software encoders and is implemented _everywhere_ to fall out of
patent coverage. How good can it possibly be if they take an ultra-
conservative approach to patents? Better or worse than Theora? When will it be
ready? When will hardware support it, if at all? How can they avoid poisonous
politics in their "open and inclusive" process if they are at the same time
pushing H.264 and H.265 as the (very, very lucrative) present and future of
video codecs? Why did it take MPEG so long to do this? How do we know this
won't end up like the royalty-free profile of H.264 which they promised but
never delivered? Which royalty-free audio codec do they intend to pair it
with?

(Another interesting thing to read would be to choose H.264 patents at random
and say "Let's just imagine VP8 infringed this. How much worse would the
encoder/decoder be if VP8 simply dropped this element?" 10%, 1%, 0.1%,
0.000001%? This blog's analysis in parts seems to suggest that a single blow
would kill VP8, in others he more realistically claims that it would require a
number of difficult to work around/buy out/invalidate patents before it
becomes a complete road block for VP8)

------
bb1000
The royalty-free MPEG video codec is currently vapourware.

------
muro
same troll as before.

~~~
tzs
Stop with the ad hominems. It is clear you have no clue what you are talking
about on this subject.

------
Tsiolkovsky
This is just not enough, Far from it, It would also have to be free to
implement without any restrictions and it should be free as in freedom, like
Ogg Theora and WebM are.This is just MPEG-LA mafia being scared because they
will not be able to extort money when they want to. The best for free and
independent web and video is if this MPEG-LA shit dies as soon as possible.

~~~
jeremyswank
According to these: [MPEG](<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mpeg>) and [MPEG
LA](<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-LA>) are not the same organization.
Quote "MPEG LA is not affiliated with MPEG, the Moving Picture Experts Group."

~~~
FlorianMueller
Yes, my article on this states: "t's important to note the difference between
MPEG, the standardization body, and MPEG LA, the licensing agency. MPEG
defines standards, and those can be royalty-free or royalty-bearing, depending
on what the owners of the essential patents agree upon in each case. MPEG LA
manages patent pools related to royalty-bearing standards, serving right
holders and licensees as a one-stop solution by way of aggregation."

