Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft release a Firefox plugin enabling H.264 support

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–38 of 38 posts

Re: Microsoft release a Firefox plugin enabling H.264 support

#31

Post by Locke1689 »

nuclear_eclipse wrote: post #24
wmf wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or the other way to look at it is that Mozilla has refused to build Firefox so that it will be compatible with MPEG-LA's licensing. Millions of users care about Web video; how many care about downstream modified versions of Firefox?

> how many care about downstream modified versions of Firefox? All of the Firefox users running Ubuntu or Debian, for a start, even if they don't realize that they're using a downstream release of Firefox, which probably encompasses millions of users already...

No one's cared about desktop Linux before, what makes you think they'll start now?

Re: Microsoft release a Firefox plugin enabling H.264 support

#32

Post by Waywocket »

wmf wrote: post #15
nuclear_eclipse wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MPEG-LA has also refused (IIRC) to license the H.264 patents to the Mozilla Foundation in a manner that would actually be compatible with an open source project. Eg., MF would not be allowed to distribute the source code of the H.264 codec/plugin for Firefox, and users who download the Firefox source code and compile Firefox would forced to license their own copy of the H.264 plugin, or else would not be able to use…

Or the other way to look at it is that Mozilla has refused to build Firefox so that it will be compatible with MPEG-LA's licensing. Millions of users care about Web video; how many care about downstream modified versions of Firefox?

>Or the other way to look at it is that Mozilla has refused to build Firefox so that it will be compatible with MPEG-LA's licensing

Well now that you put it that way, it's obvious; Mozilla should definitely ignore those pesky licensing problems in order to support a predatory cartel in gaining a global monopoly over video on the web.

Also, I hear ground up babies make excellent fertiliser.

Re: Microsoft release a Firefox plugin enabling H.264 support

#33

Post by Waywocket »

Locke1689 wrote: post #16
tvon wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (...) and is unlikely to remain royalty-free (...) The argument that there may be lurking patent issues in WebM doesn't carry a lot of weight, I think, unless they are actually demonstrated. After all, couldn't you say that about absolutely any software?

Citing from Jason's article that you obviously didn't take the time to read: "With regard to patents, VP8 copies too much from H.264 for comfort, no matter whose word is behind the claim of being patent-free. This doesn’t mean that it’s sure to be covered by patents, but until Google can give us evidence as to why it isn’t, I would be cautious."

That's simply a truism. There is no piece of software for which this isn't true. Everything, to a first approximation, violates some patent somewhere. Until somebody cowboys up and actually sues for infringement, this is purely scaremongering. That's one of the greatest evils of patents - their use as a weapon of terror.

Re: Microsoft release a Firefox plugin enabling H.264 support

#34

Post by socketpuppet »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #6
nextparadigms wrote: post #3

I think it's obvious why thy did this. They don't want Google's open source WebM codec to become the norm so they're going to push even harder for h.264. The whole Internet is better off in the end if it's built only on open source and free stuff.

How would WebM harm or H.264 help Microsoft? IMO no speculation like this is obvious without some kind of salable explanation of motive.

Microsoft is a H.264 licensor, with one or more patens in the H.264/AVC patent pool. Having H.264 become the standard for publishing video on the Web will benefit them directly in terms of licensing fees.

Re: Microsoft release a Firefox plugin enabling H.264 support

#35

Post by latch »

I got a pit in stomach reading that....Microsoft just can't win. I'm sure they have business motives for this, but it really seems like a damned if you do, damned if you don't.

They release a free plugin for Firefox, which'll help address the major issue surrounding HTML5, and the question we ask is if they've gone too far? Or why is it Windows 7 only? Really?!

Re: Microsoft release a Firefox plugin enabling H.264 support

#36

Post by Blend »

Waywocket wrote: post #33
Locke1689 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citing from Jason's article that you obviously didn't take the time to read: "With regard to patents, VP8 copies too much from H.264 for comfort, no matter whose word is behind the claim of being patent-free. This doesn’t mean that it’s sure to be covered by patents, but until Google can give us evidence as to why it isn’t, I would be cautious."

That's simply a truism. There is no piece of software for which this isn't true. Everything , to a first approximation, violates some patent somewhere. Until somebody cowboys up and actually sues for infringement, this is purely scaremongering. That's one of the greatest evils of patents - their use as a weapon of terror.

Yup. And the reason most of the software violate patents is because of the pathetic "common sense" patents being granted in the first place.

Re: Microsoft release a Firefox plugin enabling H.264 support

#37

Post by Someone »

natrius wrote: post #22
kprobst wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fairly sure they pay more than they receive in this particular case.

I doubt they pay more for their use of H.264 than they receive from everyone's use of H.264. Providing the codec may cost them money, but it's far from obvious that it's an unprofitable act.

If everyone in the patent pool is making money of H264, who is paying that money?

What big player that sells H264 is not on the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG_LA#H.264.2FMPEG-4_AVC_Lice...?

Also, MPEG-LA does have costs to pay.

I guess that, for most of the companies on that list, it is a 'pay a bit to prevent legal troubles' scenario, where 'a bit' is a couple of millions. Some of that they will get back when MPEG-LA gets disbanded.

Re: Microsoft release a Firefox plugin enabling H.264 support

#38

Post by buster »

archangel_one wrote: post #28
buster wrote: post #27

Motivation: Push H.264 on the web, give MS (and Apple) more money from license fees in the future.

I doubt it. I think their motivation is to prevent WebM from replacing h.264 as the dominant web video format. Microsoft don't care about licensing fees - their cash cows will be earning them orders of magnitude more. But if WebM replaces h.264 then Firefox on Linux (or ChromeOS or whatever) will be able to play that quite happily, whereas I'm sure MS would prefer h.264 to remain dominant since it's patent-encumbered…

Preventing WebM to become dominant has the exact same outcome of more license income ;)

Also, why shouldn't they care about license fees? Think about all encoders/decoders, all producers, all receivers, home cinema players. With more and more videos (VOD) moving into the web, this is only at the beginning. Once H.264 is established enough it's income for free!

Post reply on HN