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

Microsoft backs H.264.

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 95 posts

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#41

Post by ZeroGravitas »

pacifika wrote: post #26
vampirical wrote: post #18

Let me consult my list of companies which make money from being MPEG LA licensors: Apple Cisco Daewoo Dolby Fuijitsu HP Hitachi Philips LG Microsoft Mitsubishi NTT Panasonic Samsung Sharp Siemens Sony Ericsson Toshiba Reference: http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensors.aspx I am SHOCKED to hear that Microsoft would like to continue receiving royalties from all those H.264 license fees and doesn't give…

"Microsoft pays into MPEG-LA about twice as much as it receives back for rights to H.264." http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2010/05/03/follow-up-on-h...

So Microsoft gets a 50% discount on a tax that already benefits larger, incumbent companies by protecting them from up and coming competitors and it's incompatible with many open source and freeware business models used by competitors. And this is presented as if they're some kind of selfless saint for paying into this racket?

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#42

Post by contextfree »

The IE blog post in question (http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2011/02/02/html5-and-web-...) seems more interesting than the media stories suggest - here's what appears to be the most substantive paragraph:

"Ultimately, Microsoft remains agnostic in terms of HTML5 video as long as there is clarity on the intellectual property issues. To make it clear that we are fully willing to participate in a resolution of these issues, Microsoft is willing to commit that we will never assert any patents on VP8 if Google will make a commitment to indemnify us and all other developers and customers who use VP8 in the future. We would only ask that we be able to use those patent rights if we are sued first by somebody else. If Google would prefer a patent pool approach, then we would also agree to join a patent pool for VP8 on reasonable licensing terms so long as Google joins the pool and is able to include all other major providers of playback software and devices."

The question of indemnification seems pertinent to me, but I've only been superficially following this issue - maybe it's a red herring and Google has good reason not to offer indemnification etc. I'm curious to see the case for that.

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#43

Post by kenjackson »

jokermatt999 wrote: post #35
itg wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me consult my list of companies which would benefit from WebM: Google Don't pretend for one second this is actually about "open standards".

Actually, Mozilla and Opera would also benefit from not having to license H264. Other than the lack of license fees, how would Google benefit?

They get to screw Apple. Apple has built an existing HW ecosystem and has a highly tuned sw tools for H264. With WebM Google gets to say, "Throw all that away -- now you're behind us technologically Apple."

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#44

Post by kenjackson »

contextfree wrote: post #42

The IE blog post in question ( http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2011/02/02/html5-and-web-... ) seems more interesting than the media stories suggest - here's what appears to be the most substantive paragraph: "Ultimately, Microsoft remains agnostic in terms of HTML5 video as long as there is clarity on the intellectual property issues. To make it clear that we are fully willing to participate in a resolution of the…

Indemnification is not likely, but MS asks for good reason. They probably suspect (or maybe knows) that WebM infringes on some patents.

The patent pool, just as it does with H264, gets every player in the game to effectively commit to not assert patents.

Good move by MS. And certainly shows that they're more willing to play than anyone else has demonstrated so far.

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#45

Post by eddieplan9 »

cgranade wrote: post #10
DrJokepu wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For example, by trying to use the codec that is provided by the underlying operating system. The latest versions of both Windows and OS X ship with a H264 codec.

And what of Linux, and its variants like Android or MeeGo?

Just a theory, but I think before Google's move, hardware decoder would be ubiquitous. Think ION. Think Atom. Think Tegra 2.

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#46

Post by po »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #38
po wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but the license itself does imply that. The price licensees pay is pro-rated based on usage but is also capped at 6.5 million until 2015. The license will be renewed every 5 years but will not increase more than 10%: The first term of the License runs through 2010, but the License will be renewable for successive five-year periods for the life of any Portfolio patent on reasonable terms and conditions which may…

They used to raise the cap by 10% every year, then last year it jumped 30% and got fixed for the next 5 years. I assume that added clarity was a concession to pressure from WebM even though it meant a higher price hike right now. They also specifically added text clarifying that the cap was not limited to a 10% yearly rise so the max amount payable is explicity unknown and unlimited.

That's a good point. Here is the payment history:

The maximum annual royalty (“cap”) for an Enterprise (commonly controlled Legal Entities) is $3.5 million per year 2005-2006, $4.25 million per year 2007-08, $5 million per year 2009-10, and $6.5 million per year in 2011-15.

…and you're right that there is a footnote saying. "Annual royalty caps are not subject to the 10% limitation" which is important.

I do find it a bit strange to hear people say the license fees are unknown. Even if you assume an unlimited cap, you can schedule out what the pro-rated fees will look like for you for the next 5-10 years based on your projected growth. You can argue that they are too high, but I don't think you can argue that they are unknown. If nothing else they are bounded on the high end.

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#47

Post by orangecat »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #41
pacifika wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Microsoft pays into MPEG-LA about twice as much as it receives back for rights to H.264." http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2010/05/03/follow-up-on-h...

So Microsoft gets a 50% discount on a tax that already benefits larger, incumbent companies by protecting them from up and coming competitors and it's incompatible with many open source and freeware business models used by competitors. And this is presented as if they're some kind of selfless saint for paying into this racket?

Bingo. Microsoft and Apple support H.264 for the same reasons that Walmart supports minimum wage increases and Mattel supports extensive product testing regulations.

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#48

Post by ZeroGravitas »

kenjackson wrote: post #39
haberman wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The devil you know versus the devil you don't. You don't know the H.264 devil any better. It's just as likely that some lone patent wolf will come forward and go after H.264. It's simply FUD to say that WebM is somehow more susceptible. Just because MPEG-LA makes you pay for their set of patents doesn't mean they're protecting you against patents they don't hold.

I'd say you know the H264 devil a little better. Why? Because its spec and patents have been extremely well documented for a decade (or so), commented on, and implemented (there are at least 10 implementations I know of). Whereas WebM's details first came to light less than a year ago. You're right that it is possible that either still violate some patent out in the wild. BUT if you were to weigh the odds -- a nearly…

It seems to be widely accepted that WebM is a minor variation on H.264 with changes specifically designed to avoid the H.264 patents, which as you mention have been openly published and well documented for years.

Since large segments of H.264 were simply dropped for WebM, apparently there's only about 49 H.264 patents total (out of over a thousand) that could even remotely apply. That seems a reasonable number for On2 to work around, and for Google (and everyone else listed on their supporters page)'s lawyers to double check.

So now we are speculating about a random patent troll who happens to hold a patent that doesn't read on H.264 but does read on a simplified version of H.264 with some minor patent avoiding variations. Seems to me that if you're arguing H.264 is clean, then so is WebM.

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#49

Post by weavejester »

imajes wrote: post #34
cgranade wrote: post #7

I get really tired of people saying that the patents on H.264 are a "red herring." How is open source software like Firefox supposed to use H.264 if they have to pay massive licensing fees? That enforcement thus far has been weak to non-existent doesn't imply that it will continue to be so in the future.

For the record, it appears Mozilla, Inc is very rich and could almost certainly just afford the fees and be done with it. That way they'd close the loop and we'd all adopt h264, pay the money, and be on our way to HTML5 video. It's clear that the adoption of webm is about control and changing the conversation: Google & Mozilla want to drive the direction and own the space. Let's not forget, mozilla owns the 'open sou…

The problem isn't financial; it's ideological. The GPL says that no additional restrictions must be placed on the end user. The H.264 license says that only personal and non-commercial use is allowed.

I'm not sure whether they legally conflict, but the H.264 license is obviously against the spirit of the GPL.

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#50

Post by ZeroGravitas »

po wrote: post #46
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They used to raise the cap by 10% every year, then last year it jumped 30% and got fixed for the next 5 years. I assume that added clarity was a concession to pressure from WebM even though it meant a higher price hike right now. They also specifically added text clarifying that the cap was not limited to a 10% yearly rise so the max amount payable is explicity unknown and unlimited.

That's a good point. Here is the payment history: The maximum annual royalty (“cap”) for an Enterprise (commonly controlled Legal Entities) is $3.5 million per year 2005-2006, $4.25 million per year 2007-08, $5 million per year 2009-10, and $6.5 million per year in 2011-15. …and you're right that there is a footnote saying. "Annual royalty caps are not subject to the 10% limitation" which is important. I do find it a…

Are you saying that last year, you could have predicted the licence fee cap would have been $6.5 million and not 5.5 or 7.5 or 10.5? If you couldn't then it was unknown until they announced it. Similarly, what do you predict it will be in 5 years and each of the next 20 years till the patents run out? Are you sure?
Post reply on HN