codec quality

Posted Dec 12, 2007 18:29 UTC (Wed) by mjr (guest, #6979)
In reply to: codec quality by DonDiego
Parent article: Specifying codecs for the web

Theora is indeed not the most advanced video codec there is. However, if you had actually read
the article or understood the issues, these patent-encumbered codecs are not simply even in
the running for a W3C recommendation. Therefore technical comparisons to them are, indeed,
quite irrelevant.

In fact, barring a miracle and the MPEG LA granting a royalty-free license to some MPEG
profile, the base codec recommended by HTML5 is likely to be an extremely old and crappy one
whose possible patents have expired already. That is if there is going to be a recommended
base codec; a consensus is not overly likely, what with MPEG LA protection racket members
having a strong say in the matter.

to post comments

codec quality

Posted Dec 12, 2007 23:19 UTC (Wed) by DonDiego (guest, #24141) [Link] (2 responses)

Theora is indeed not the most advanced video codec there is. However, if you had actually read the article or understood the issues, these patent-encumbered codecs are not simply even in the running for a W3C recommendation. Therefore technical comparisons to them are, indeed, quite irrelevant.

I read the article and understand the issue perfectly. My point still stands: If the standard incorporates a low quality codec, the standard is going to be ignored. Alternatively it will be sabotaged as we have just witnessed Nokia do. Anybody who thinks that a low quality codec will win the race on nothing more than its legal merits is deluded. What's worse, there are no hard facts that prove Theora to not infringe any patents. It's just a popular belief in certain circles.

codec quality

Posted Dec 13, 2007 6:24 UTC (Thu) by nettings (subscriber, #429) [Link] (1 responses)

> What's worse, there are no hard facts that prove Theora to not infringe any patents. It's
just a popular belief in certain circles.

as a certain member of such circles let me tell you in no uncertain terms that this remark is
not particularly brilliant.
some facts to clear the FUD:

* theora is based on a patented codec (VP3 by On2) donated to the open-source community. a
license for unlimited use has been granted, and a lot of legal babble ensures that this stays
so.
* therefore it has been scrutinized by patent law to some extent and found sufficiently
original that a patent was granted.
* there can never be absolute proof that something is entirely unencumbered by patents. this
is not an argument against theora, but against software patents.

http://theora.org/faq/#24

codec quality

Posted Dec 13, 2007 13:36 UTC (Thu) by DonDiego (guest, #24141) [Link]

theora is based on a patented codec (VP3 by On2) donated to the open-source community. a license for unlimited use has been granted, and a lot of legal babble ensures that this stays so.

therefore it has been scrutinized by patent law to some extent and found sufficiently original that a patent was granted.

Your faith in patent law and the patent offices is honorable, but unfortunately there is no base for it in reality. The above points do not in any way refute my claim that the lack of patent encumbrances in Theora is - sadly - little more than wishful thinking by certain parties.

To the best of my knowledge there has not even been an exhaustive patent search around Theora to put some confidence into the assumption that Theora is free of patent encumbrances. Not that such a search could be exhaustive, but it could give people some confidence.