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

81–90 of 95 posts

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#81

Post by haberman »

kenjackson wrote: post #76
haberman wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google already knows about them. And has bet the future on WebM anyway. I trust Google's legal counsel more than I trust you. What if H.264 infringes on some of Google's patents? Google could countersue and go after members of MPEG-LA, or even end-users of H.264. Google's patent license only covers Google's WebM implementation.

You do realize that Google's legal counsel has very little say in this. Google's engineers are making the call and the counsel is just providing legal advice. The legal counsel doesn't know what is infringing on what. With that said, you'd probably say that you trust Google's engineers more than me. I'd hope so. You have no idea who I am.

> Google's engineers are making the call and the counsel is just providing legal advice. The legal counsel doesn't know what is infringing on what.

[citation needed]

What makes you think that a big company with enormous potential for legal liability would let engineers make decisions that are of legal consequence, like whether to aggressively push a video format amidst a patent minefield?

Do you think the engineers wrote the patent license too?

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#82

Post by haberman »

recoiledsnake wrote: post #79
haberman wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google already knows about them. And has bet the future on WebM anyway. I trust Google's legal counsel more than I trust you. What if H.264 infringes on some of Google's patents? Google could countersue and go after members of MPEG-LA, or even end-users of H.264. Google's patent license only covers Google's WebM implementation.

If so then what is the reason Google is not providing patent indemnification? If it does, MS would bundle it with IE9 (perhaps even the OS) instantly allowing about 40% of worldwide to seamlessly watch WebM content. I guess Google is afraid of being sued for billions for the hundreds of millions of installs that Windows and/or IE9 ship.

> If so then what is the reason Google is not providing patent indemnification?

You could ask the same question of MPEG-LA: they don't indemnify their customers either.

> If it does, MS would bundle it with IE9

That is not at all clear. I would even call it unlikely.

> I guess Google is afraid of being sued for billions

I guess MPEG-LA is afraid of the same thing.

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#83

Post by [deleted] »

haberman wrote: post #81
kenjackson wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realize that Google's legal counsel has very little say in this. Google's engineers are making the call and the counsel is just providing legal advice. The legal counsel doesn't know what is infringing on what. With that said, you'd probably say that you trust Google's engineers more than me. I'd hope so. You have no idea who I am.

> Google's engineers are making the call and the counsel is just providing legal advice. The legal counsel doesn't know what is infringing on what. [citation needed] What makes you think that a big company with enormous potential for legal liability would let engineers make decisions that are of legal consequence, like whether to aggressively push a video format amidst a patent minefield? Do you think the engineers w…

[deleted]

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#84

Post by knowtheory »

tomlin wrote: post #75
knowtheory wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is very frustrating to hear this constantly touted as hypocrisy. It is not. Users and developers are free to use any and all Flash components. Flash itself is a published standard (although proprietary). You can create alternative VMs largely w/o caveat (the only one i've heard raised was some DRM junk having to do with Flash Media Server, which no one should use anyway). There is no threat of patent licensing hov…

> It's hardly sensible for criticizing them for not moving more quickly on the issue. I'm not criticizing Google. I realize there was a time where WebM was VP8. When I say WebM needed to be here 5 years ago , that's all I'm saying. No one company, standards body, org. is to blame. > There is no threat of patent licensing hovering over people who use Flash. That is not the case with H.264 encoding. Agreed. The individ…

Sorry, my comment wasn't terribly clear, i am mainly agreeing with you!

I actually work in online video development, and the company i work for has determined even prior to the WebM hubbub that we were going to have to stick with a flash based player definitely for the short term, most likely for the medium term, and the long term is yet to be determined.

The thing is, that for all the monstrosities inflicted on the web by Adobe and Macromedia (may their children be afflicted with irritating skin diseases), they're neither business nor developer hostile (except through neglect).

They want people to use their products, and their existing revenue generating business is based around high penetration. The structure of their business and their incentives are such that pissing off the entire developer community would be a very bad thing (and you can see this in the fact that people like you are now former flash developers, and next to no one is willing to cop to being a current flash developer).

MPEGLA's incentives are different and their revenue sources are exclusively through licensing and enforcement.

So the bit of FUD that i find frustrating is the notion that the Flash or Java plugins are similar to codecs. They really aren't, except superficially.

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#85

Post by kenjackson »

haberman wrote: post #82
recoiledsnake wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If so then what is the reason Google is not providing patent indemnification? If it does, MS would bundle it with IE9 (perhaps even the OS) instantly allowing about 40% of worldwide to seamlessly watch WebM content. I guess Google is afraid of being sued for billions for the hundreds of millions of installs that Windows and/or IE9 ship.

> If so then what is the reason Google is not providing patent indemnification? You could ask the same question of MPEG-LA: they don't indemnify their customers either. > If it does, MS would bundle it with IE9 That is not at all clear. I would even call it unlikely. > I guess Google is afraid of being sued for billions I guess MPEG-LA is afraid of the same thing.

You could ask the same question of MPEG-LA: they don't indemnify their customers either.

But Microsoft does. Why doesn't Google?

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#86

Post by drdaeman »

tomlin wrote: post #37

> At first, they touted the maneuver as being all about supporting “open” formats. But if that’s the case, why not pull support for the Flash plug-in baked into every version of Chrome currently? This is the single shittiest argument I've ever heard, and continue to hear. 1) Adobe isn't charging browser makers royalty or licensing fees to use Flash. 2) Are we really going to pull the "all or nothing" argument with a…

The reduction ad Hitle^W Flash argument is totally flawed, yet it keeps repeating in every single article on "Google-and-WebM-vs-H.264" article.

I think there's a simple quality measurement of an article in this case. If article presents both pros and cons of Google's (Apple's, Microsoft's) decision - it's more likely the article's good. Otherwise it's probably one-sided.

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#87

Post by noibl »

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…

This is the classic case of saying 'I'm all for it as long as you can get everyone else onboard' when you believe that their chances of doing so are nil. If they managed to do it, your position would then be dictated by events anyway. Asking for 'indemnification' as an alternative demand shows just how high the bar is being set.

When you strip away fantasies like 'indemnify' and 'group-hug patent pool', the only significant line left is 'we are not willing to commit that we will never assert any patent rights on VP8', or "we just might sue".

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#88

Post by tzs »

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?

H.264 is readily available on Linux.

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#89

Post by tzs »

orangecat wrote: post #47
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, they support H.264 because it is THE video standard. Not supporting H.264 for video would be like not supporting JPEG for photographs.

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#90

Post by haberman »

kenjackson wrote: post #85
haberman wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If so then what is the reason Google is not providing patent indemnification? You could ask the same question of MPEG-LA: they don't indemnify their customers either. > If it does, MS would bundle it with IE9 That is not at all clear. I would even call it unlikely. > I guess Google is afraid of being sued for billions I guess MPEG-LA is afraid of the same thing.

You could ask the same question of MPEG-LA: they don't indemnify their customers either. But Microsoft does. Why doesn't Google?

I wasn't aware that they did -- interesting. But actually that only covers "any Microsoft software licensed for a fee for your end use." [0] Since Google does not charge end-users for any of its software that it distributes, you could argue that Google's indemnification program is just as extensive as Microsoft's.

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

Post reply on HN