- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 19:15:11 +0000 (UTC)
On Sun, 7 Jun 2009, David Gerard wrote: > 2009/6/7 Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar at googlemail.com>: > > > > How is it incredible? Who has looked at the submarine patents? They by > > definition are unpublished! Yes, certainly, published patents are well > > researched, but this is not the objection that anyone has made to it. > > It is not credible to claim that any other codec whatsoever does not > have the same problems - and paying Thomson or the MPEG-LA does *not* > protect one from submarine claims from others, as Microsoft found out to > its cost with MP3 - nor is it credible to claim that Ogg formats have > more such problems. Every codec has the same problem; the difference is that companies like Apple have already taken on the patent risk with MPEG-LA licensed codecs and are not willing to double their exposure. (Other companies like Google apparently _are_ willing to take this risk.) -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Sunday, 7 June 2009 12:15:11 UTC