W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > March 2010

[whatwg] Video Tag Proposal

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:03:22 +1100
Message-ID: <2c0e02831003281603s703416carf34e9a752f231ad@mail.gmail.com>
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?

Received on Sunday, 28 March 2010 16:03:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:22 UTC