video codec patent nonsense

Ugh. I'm getting fed up seeing this outrageous FUD repeated over and over again. Mostly by
you, Mr. Biurrun. 

Although I'm replying to you my message is really intended for others who might be mislead by
your message.  It's clear to me that you are far too deep into propritary codec advocacy for
anything I say to leave an impression.

The popular mainstream video codecs, such as H.264, are extensively patented by known and
identified patents. The patents (frequently) cover novel and fairly non-obvious ideas. The
participants in the patent pools for these codecs are raking in enormous amounts of money and
codec patents are some of the few software patents that bring in much money at all.  Various
media coding patents have been enforced multiple times in the US, most of Europe, and the
United Kingdom. Many of the most prominent patent holders in this field are European.

These encumbered formats may also be covered by unknown/unidentified submarine patents, or
other patents held by parties which do not participate in the patent pools. Obtaining a
license from the pool grants you only a license to the pool patents and the pool make no
warranty related to the non-existence of other covering patents. Even if some know about them
they aren't obligated to tell you. You're on your own. 

Microsoft found this out quite painfully not too long ago after getting a 1.4 billion dollar
judgment against them for some MP3 technology related patents, even though they were a fully
paid of licensee of the patent pool. (The damages are on hold while they appeal...)

Intentionally unencumbered codecs like Dirac and Theora are either free from known patents or
have had the known patents licensed for perpetual royalty free use by everyone. They have
received a reasonable level of scrutiny by their authors and others, since being unencumbered
is a serious part of the purpose of these codecs.  If anyone is aware of a specific
likely-valid patent that covers either of these formats please speak up so that it can be
avoided. 

Like the known-encumbered formats it is possible that there exists some submarine patents for
Theora and Dirac.

The current patents systems are an utter mess which create terrible problems. Even though it
is easy to demonstrate that some software has better patent positions than others, as has been
done for  Theora and Dirac, It is completely impossible to certify that any piece of
non-trivial software is entirely free of possible patent claims. This is by no means limited
to media codec patents.

In comparing two items it is unreasonable to fault one side for a risk which is common to
both.

Some even argue that the unencumbered formats will necessarily be less subject to less risk
from even the unknown patents because patent problem avoidance was an important goal, and
because submarine patents tend to be fairly broad which would result in a Dirac submarine
patent likely also impacting H.264.

In any case, the world is paying many millions of dollars a year to licenses things like AAC,
H.264, and MP3 encoders. These fees have *no equal* for Dirac, Theora, and friends.   Perhaps
this doesn't matter to you. It matters to other people.

I think it is very unfortunate that so many people in the various "open media software"
communities are spending so much of their time on known-encumbered formats and ignoring the
problems until the summons shows up on their doorstep.  But this apparent lack of foresight is
a natural consequence of the "scratching an itch" nature of most open development.

That you don't care for open formats is your own decision. I'm glad you're happy with it. But
please stop FUDing the work of people trying to improve your freedom just because you don't
care. 

Thanks.