- From: Krzysztof Żelechowski <giecrilj@stegny.2a.pl>
- Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 12:42:37 +0100
Dnia 14-12-2007, Pt o godzinie 22:06 -0800, Joseph Daniel Zukiger pisze: > Has someone made the precise suggestion I made? > Specifically: > > (1) Require (MUST) a container/codec not known to be > encumbered for the <video> tag. > > (2) Require an open plugin API for the browser, so > that 3rd-party implementations can be dropped in, and > allow the requirement of (1) to be met by a third > party plugin. > > (3) Mention Ogg as an example of container/codecs > which are not presently known to be encumbered. > > I guess I can see a problem with that if it turns out > that someone can make ogg appear to be encumbered. So > it would probably need > > (4) Allow the requirement of (1) to be waived, or > commuted to the next best thing available under RAND > terms in the event that there are no implementations > not known to be encumbered. The codec required must be specified explicitly by name, otherwise the online world will go apart. The statements above do not make a good solution because they are not precise enough. > PS: > (5) Take this issue to the US Congress to explain how > "strong" "IP" laws actually do interfere with > innovation by anyone but 800 ton^H^H^H pound gorillas. Do you think we have a representative among us? Besides, I think they are smart enough to know that. It does not help much because they are "encumbered" themselves. Make a donation to nosoftwarepatents.org and stop bringing it up here. Chris
Received on Saturday, 15 December 2007 03:42:37 UTC