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

61–70 of 95 posts

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#61

Post by nitrogen »

itg wrote: post #30
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…

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".

Your list of companies is rather incomplete, and should include every non-H264-licensing company on the planet that ever created a training or marketing video.

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#62

Post by nlogn »

griftah wrote: post #27
akmiller wrote: post #17

Of course Microsoft and Apple support H.264. They both stand to benefit: http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensors.aspx

Of course Firefox and Opera support WebM. Revenues of Mozilla Foundation and Opera Software depend on Google.

Firefox and Opera had chosen VP8 in favor of H.264 before Chrome did.

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#63

Post by akmiller »

griftah wrote: post #27
akmiller wrote: post #17

Of course Microsoft and Apple support H.264. They both stand to benefit: http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensors.aspx

Of course Firefox and Opera support WebM. Revenues of Mozilla Foundation and Opera Software depend on Google.

I agree with you as well, but I don't see why my point doesn't stand. I'm not saying I agree with one side or the other just that everyone has a stake in this game.

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#64

Post by po »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #50
po wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No, I'm agreeing that you're right that the cap is effectively unknown. I missed that footnote (shame on me). My point is that even with an unknown cap, the license rates are predictable for the foreseeable future:

    Free under 100k units
    $0.20 per unit above 100k
    $0.10 per unit above 5 million units
Now, I'm no fan of software patents and I wish they would be done away with. But given the choice between that and the practical/technical/patent uncertainty of webM I don't feel like those are massive payments.

I'm glad Google open sourced the on2 codec and I can even see that maybe the H.264 prices have been influenced by that move. But from a practical standpoint, I think Apple and Microsoft are making a reasonable move. People say it's short-sighted, but I think they are relatively protected.

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#65

Post by beej71 »

kenjackson wrote: post #43
jokermatt999 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

And Apple is telling Google GFY and taking record profits. Why is that state of affairs going to change?

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#66

Post by ZeroGravitas »

kenjackson wrote: post #55
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 On…

Your interpretation doesn't match those of people who have analyzed it. The problem with WebM is that it may infringe on H264 patents! And its not clear they have done enough to avoid the problems. H264 has come together to form a very strong patent pool. None of the patents can be asserted against H264 (nor can the partner companies in general), but any of them can be asserted against WebM. Read JGG's account, which…

Here's an analysis, which builds on the analysis in your link. I think it's obvious which one makes more sense if you read both:

http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/an-analysis-of-webm-and-its-p...

Some highlights:

"Dark Shikari makes several considerations, some related to the implementation itself, and many related to its “patent status”. For example: “VP8’s intra prediction is basically ripped off wholesale from H.264″, without mentioning that the intra prediction mode is actually pre-dating H264; actually, it was part of Nokia MVC proposal and H263++ extensions published in 2000, and the specific WebM implementation is different from the one mentioned in the “essential patents” of H264 as specified by the MPEG-LA.

If you go through the post, you will find lots of curious mentions of “sub-optimal” choices:

[big list of the identical features with minor differences between H.264 and VP8]

What we can obtain from this (very thorough – thanks, Jason!) analysis is the fact that from my point of view it is clear that On2 was actually aware of patents, and tried very hard to avoid them. It is also clear that this is in no way an assurance that there are no situation of patent infringements, only that it seems that due diligence was performed. Also, WebM is not comparable to H264 in terms of technical sophistication (it is more in line with MPEG4/VC1) but this is clearly done to avoid recent patents; some of the patents on older specification are already expired (for example, all France Telecom patents on H264 are expired)."

There's also a follow up here which discusses the thought process behind the 49 potential H.264 patents:

http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/on-webm-again-freedom-quality...

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#67

Post by tuxychandru »

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…

When MPEG LA which holds several codec related patents in its pool cannot indemnify its H.264 licensees, Google indemnifying WebM sounds far fetched.

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#68

Post by kenjackson »

The IE blog post, http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2011/02/02/html5-and-web-..., also mentioned something I'd never seen before. MS indemnifies Windows users for included software, which would include H264. And is probably an obvious reason why WebM isn't shipped as part of Windows (client and server).

That'a s pretty big frickin deal. I thought indemnification was off the table, but reading this Google has at least got to say that end users of WebM are indemnified. I honestly don't think they are willing to take that risk given the patent state of WebM.

http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/D/0/9D0A6265-A509-4...

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#69

Post by beej71 »

> by turning their back on H.264, Google is ensuring that Flash will continue to remain the dominant force in web video for years to come

Even if Google didn't support the video tag at all, people can still use IE and Safari, right? Its looking like H.264 is going to be the dominant codec, after all, so IE and Safari will support it. If you want it on another browser, you'll need a plugin, sorry. That could be Flash, or it could be something else.

> but the issue here is that we need the HTML5 standard to fully support H.264, and that’s simply not going to happen without Google on board.

No. The answer is no, with or without Google. It's a bad idea to have a per-unit fee for distributing a standards-compliant browser. Go ahead and buy it for the browser you're building--I'm fine with that--but don't make it a requirement.

And to anyone who says, "$0.20 isn't that much", you must agree to back it in cash. If you say you'll personally cover the licensing fees for anyone who asks, well, then I'll reconsider.

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#70

Post by kenjackson »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #66
kenjackson wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your interpretation doesn't match those of people who have analyzed it. The problem with WebM is that it may infringe on H264 patents! And its not clear they have done enough to avoid the problems. H264 has come together to form a very strong patent pool. None of the patents can be asserted against H264 (nor can the partner companies in general), but any of them can be asserted against WebM. Read JGG's account, which…

Here's an analysis, which builds on the analysis in your link. I think it's obvious which one makes more sense if you read both: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/an-analysis-of-webm-and-its-p... Some highlights: "Dark Shikari makes several considerations, some related to the implementation itself, and many related to its “patent status”. For example: “VP8’s intra prediction is basically ripped off wholesale from H.264″…

That's not an analysis, but a commentary on the work Jason did.

But he says a lot of BS, like, "In fact, one of the most brain damaged things of the current software patent situation is the fact that if a company performs a patent search and finds a potential infringing patent it may incur in additional damages for willful infringement (called “treble damages”). So, the actual approach is to perform the same analysis, try to work around any potential infringing patent, and for those close enough cases that cannot be avoided try to steer away as much as possible. So, calling Google out for releasing the study on possible patent infringement is something that has no sense at all: they will never release it to the public."

Patent law makes it VERY clear that treble damages occur with WILLFUL infringement. Good faith efforts, the inevitably fail, won't be subject to treble damages.

It seems like he's bending over backwards to show that Google shouldn't disclose anything, which is absurd.

His opinion that the suboptimal choices means that WebM has avoided the H264 patents seems very suspect to me. And contradictory, because if they did do what he said, and did accidentally infringe, by his (incorrect) logic they'd be liable for treble damages. Blech.

Post reply on HN