[whatwg] The issue of interoperability of the <video> element

At 13:21  +0100 25/06/07, Ivo Emanuel Gon?alves wrote:
>According to Wikipedia,
>"AT&T is trying to sue companies such as Apple Inc. over alleged
>MPEG-4 patent infringement.[1][2][3]"
>I would be fascinated to see a statement from Apple, Inc. regarding this.

I regret that we (like most companies) cannot 
comment on possible pending litigation 
(fascinating as some of these cases are).  Sorry.

>It's also quite interesting that different portions of MPEG-4,
>including different sections of video and audio are licensed
>separately, so what this means is that any vendor willing to support
>MPEG-4 for <video> and <audio> has to locate every patent holder and
>pay them.

Yes, video and audio are separate;  but there are 
also pools that simplify the position.

>Oh, and will you look at this, Apple, Inc. holds one the patents!  US
>6,134,243 [4].  So Apple gets money for every single license sold.

It's nice that you have done the research and 
found what we are doing with our patents. Or are 
you guessing?

>How nice.  They are attempting to lock vendors into MPEG-4

Pardon?  We use it and are happy when others do. 
*We* are not asking more.  It's not us who are 
proposing any lock or mandate;  you might check 
the Ogg community for that suggestion.  Also, you 
might wonder whether licensing of standards is a 
net income or cost for us.

>and get
>money from licenses in the process.  Apple, Inc. is no better than

And Ivo is no better than Sylvia.  This isn't a 
very helpful comparison.  (Actually, I know 
Sylvia but regret that I don't think I have ever 
met you).
David Singer

Received on Monday, 25 June 2007 08:17:20 UTC