No, I made the point I wanted to make.
No, I made the point I wanted to make.
Posted Feb 5, 2010 14:13 UTC (Fri) by gmaxwell (guest, #30048)In reply to: No, I made the point I wanted to make. by DonDiego
Parent article: Blizzard: HTML5 video and H.264 - what history tells us and why we're standing with the web
I wasn't giving you an intuition, I was giving you a format maximum: You can put about 64k of payload in an Ogg page or up to 255 packets. For that file that using maximum size pages would give an ogg overhead of 82887 bytes. Had I used larger page sizes in my comparison I would have no longer been using default settings, which was one of my goals. I'm not sure how you're writing out those files for your mp4 comparison, I'm guessing they still have some container headers, but reading the samplesizes directly from the mp4 dump brings me to 86245 bytes of container overhead, which is pretty similar.
not the horrible quality Youtube currently offersWell, what can I say? I wrote a clearly described specific comparison about YT because of an outrageous goggler quote. Now you're running around the internet calling my statements fraudulent because they weren't a comparison with something else.
Without them free software desktop market share would be orders of magnitude smaller and decreasing.I fail to see how advancing the state of the art in the best encumbered format encoders does much of anything to preserve free desktops by helping people "listen to music and watch movies". But to each his own. There are perfectly viable ways to get legally licensed encoders for your desktop even if tools like ffmpeg didn't exist, but its existence wasn't something that I was protesting.
I'll stop wondering about submarine patents the moment you guys earn my trust by publishing your findings.You could at least get the terminology right. A "submarine patent" isn't what you should be worried about, submarine patents are an old technique for making effectively secret patents that could last for decades, scary indeed. This loophole was closed in the mid-90s. All the submarines were forced to surface.
The way the patent system is setup you are very strongly discouraged from disclosing your research: The parties suing for infringement have the stronger position and making them aware of your position allows them to avoid arguing particular things. For example "my own work is prior art for that claim" and "I don't practice that technique" are mutually exclusive defences. If the attacker knows how you will defend they can make the legal battle much longer and more expensive to win. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
The whole purpose of Xiph is to produce/promote unencumbered formats. We expend a fair amount of additional effort, and accept considerable limits because of what techniques we're not permitted to practice. Knowingly allowing something encumbered would be self-defeating in the most enormous way. Of course, mistakes could be made.
What I can give point to you is a decade of shipment, by a large number of parties (some with decently deep pockets) with no publicly known litigation related the formats, which is better than you can say for many mpeg standards. I can also point you to shipments by large organizations who had their own legal teams look at it. I'm sorry if thats not enough for you, but as far as I can tell nothing would be.
What you were doing by slinging a bunch of irrelevant patent numbers was pure FUDing, in a particularly vile way. I think it speaks a lot to your motivation and character, and it's a warning about the futility of engaging with you which I should have heeded.
Cheers.
The LWN site is currently under high scraper load, so comment display has been suppressed for anonymous users. If you are a human, you may read the comments by clicking the button below:
Note: you can avoid this step in the future by logging into your LWN account.