- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:03:22 +1100
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 7:14 AM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote: > On 28 March 2010 21:11, Kelly Clowers <kelly.clowers at gmail.com> wrote: > >> For Theora. They haven't really said much about Vorbis AFAIK. And I think an >> audio codec is less likely to have patent issues than a video codec (especially >> since Vorbis has a lot of high profile use that should have drawn out any patent >> trolls) , and that is what Apple supposedly is worried about. > > > The catch with Vorbis is that if you support it, whoever owns the MP3 > patents charges you a lot more. > > (That's why I have an MP3 player that does Ogg Vorbis but does not > mention the fact in the packaging, documentation or advertising in any > manner whatsoever.) That would be crazy, cause no MP3 patents apply to Vorbis. You are able to use Vorbis without an MP3 license and the MPEG-LA should not be able to charge you more just because your want to support both codecs in your product. I believe that would not be legal. Do you have a concrete example, like a quote or something, that confirms this? Regards, Silvia.
Received on Sunday, 28 March 2010 16:03:22 UTC