video codec patent nonsense

video codec patent nonsense

Posted Apr 10, 2008 13:56 UTC (Thu) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054)
In reply to: video codec patent nonsense by DonDiego
Parent article: Video forums for free software

You have to admit there's a difference between having a codec that you know is covered by a patent, and having a codec for which you don't know of any current patent issues.

How about this change:

"Patented video codecs are a big part of the problem, though there are free alternatives (Theora and Dirac for example) that are not known to be covered under any patents, they are not widely used."

By the way, that sentence needs one of its commas (preferably the first) to be changed to a semicolon.

---

(Log in to post comments)

Of course there is a difference between a codec where the patent situation is an unknown
unchartered territory and another codec where you can go to a patent clearinghouse to buy
licenses.

Some players in the market prefer codecs where you can get licenses from a clearinghouse,
others prefer those where no such entities exist.  This does not, however, constitute a proof
or even a statement that no patents apply to the latter category.

And neither model protects you from trolls coming along later of course.

You assume that for the ones known to be covered by patents that we know all of the patents
involved.

It's almost the same case, really, except you are prevented from applying copyleft terms to
your implementation because of the patent licensing agreement.