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

[whatwg] Video Tag Proposal

From: Eoin Kilfeather <ekilfeather@dmc.dit.ie>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 14:58:40 +0100
Message-ID: <dec546151003300658td787908s40899ec712c1221b@mail.gmail.com>
Forgive my ignorance, I Am Not A Lawyer, but what are the consequences
of a submarine patent on Theora and/or Vorbis? If a browser supports
it in good faith, and subsequently a troll successfully introduces a
patent challenge, would the consequence not be that the codec would
simply be dropped with the next maintenance release of the browser? In
fact a court would surely allow a reasonable time for transition. OK,
annoying that content providers need to  re-encoded in a "legal"
codec, but that is at least a work-flow susceptible to automation. I
can't see a court giving financial "damages" for infringement of a
patent which hasn't surfaced since <video> was proposed at the end of

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 10:23 AM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29 March 2010 09:41, Kit Grose <kit at iqmultimedia.com.au> wrote:
>> Apple is at heart a hardware company. My understanding of their objections to OGG have been also largely due to a lack of hardware decoder support in their iPods/iPhones.
> No, they claimed submarine patents as their actual objection to Theora.
> (I'm not aware of them making an express claim of this sort regarding Vorbis.)
> - d.

Eoin Kilfeather
Digital Media Centre
Dublin Institute of Technology
Aungier Street
Dublin 2
m. +353 87 2235928
Received on Tuesday, 30 March 2010 06:58:40 UTC

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