- From: <jjcogliati-whatwg@yahoo.com>
- Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 15:03:51 -0700 (PDT)
--- On Sun, 6/7/09, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote: > From: David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [whatwg] Codec mess with <video> and <audio> tags > To: whatwg at lists.whatwg.org > Date: Sunday, June 7, 2009, 9:30 AM > 2009/6/7? <jjcogliati-whatwg at yahoo.com>: > > > There are concerns or issues with all of these: > > a) a number of large companies are concerned about the > possible > > unintended entanglements of the open-source codecs; a > 'deep pockets' > > company deploying them may be subject to risk here. > ?Google and other companies have announced plans to ship > > Ogg Vorbis and Theora or are shipping Ogg Vorbis and Theora, > so this may not be considered a problem in the future. > > > Indeed. There are no *credible* claims of submarine patent > problems > with the Ogg codecs that would not apply precisely as much > to *any > other codec whatsoever*. I fully agree that any codec can have the possibility that there may be unknown patents that read on them. > In fact, there are less, because the Ogg codecs have in > fact been > thoroughly researched. I have looked for evidence of that there has been any patent research on the Ogg codecs. I assume that Google, Redhat and others have at least done some research, but I have yet to find any public research information. I probably am just missing the pointers to this, so could you please tell me where I can find results of this research? Thank you. > This claimed objection to Ogg is purest odious FUD, and > should be > described as such at every mention of it. It is not > credible, it is a > blatant and knowing lie.
Received on Sunday, 7 June 2009 15:03:51 UTC