Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog)More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog)Posted Jan 17, 2011 1:51 UTC (Mon) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167)In reply to: More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog) by Los__D Parent article: More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog)
Even better, nothing should make you believe that MPEG-LA has rights for all the patents you need. It is entirely possible that you could implement whatever codec, having purchased a suitable license from the MPEG LA and then some lawyer you've never heard of sends you a letter insisting you immediately pay back royalties on every unit shipped to his firm, or else they'll see you in court.
This isn't just a fairy tale, it happens, and it will probably continue to happen so long as software patents (and perhaps patents generally) exist. When it trips up the Microsofts of this world they just pay up and move on, but if you're a start up you will probably go out of business.
(Log in to post comments)
More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog) Posted Jan 17, 2011 14:26 UTC (Mon) by clump (subscriber, #27801) [Link]
Exactly. There's much misinformation being spread about unencumbered codecs along the lines of "Well, just because we can't find patent infringement doesn't mean there isn't any."
The same argument is true of encumbered codecs after you've 'licensed' them.
|
|||||||||||||