Hacker News Reader

Comment by maggit | Hacker News Reader

    Assuming it is true, it still does not alter the fact that Ogg is a bad format.
    Being free from patents does not magically make Ogg a good choice as file format.
    If all the standard formats are indeed covered by patents, the only proper
    solution is to design a new, good format which is not, this time hopefully
    avoiding the old mistakes.

Well, being free from patents can be a very good feature, and may very well make this the only -- and therefore best -- available choice.

It might not be possible to make a good format to replace it exactly due to patents. Too many patents on obvious and necessary solutions exist.

However, I don't know the specifics. I would have liked a similar discussion on the format which included patent concerns. Can anyone fill in? :)

View on HN

Just because their authors say that doesn't mean that it's true. Worse still, no corporation is willing to perform a patent search because such an activity could open a liability should it be discovered that something they already use is covered by a patent they previously were unaware of.

The fact is that it is extremely difficult to implement any multimedia application without running afoul of a patent. Rational developers will pick the safest option, and that is to license the MPEG patents, which (I believe) also offers submarine patent protection in that the MPEG-LA would be solely liable for not finding them earlier should trouble arise.

The good news is that these patents are not enforceable worldwide, and the first of them should start expiring (if they haven't already) within the next few years.

> MPEG patents, which (I believe) also offers submarine patent protection in that the MPEG-LA would be solely liable for not finding them earlier should trouble arise.

Why so many people believe this and where it comes from? I see it repeated so many times, always without reference. FYI, from AVC licensing FAQ:

Q: Are all AVC essential patents included?

A: No assurance is or can be made that the License includes every essential patent. The purpose of the License is to offer a convenient licensing alternative to everyone on the same terms and to include as much essential intellectual property as possible for their convenience. Participation in the License is voluntary on the part of essential patent holders, however.

Theora is VP3+few well documented modifications. Youtube for years and still today used on2 codecs (through flash) which are all based on VP3 with optimization. If Theora and therefore VP3 were patent encumbered so would be all the codecs used by youtube, hulu, vimeo and all sites that use flash video. Now if I had a patent on vp3, would I be crazy enough to wait for theora to be successful in order to sue the hell out of everyone? Or would I have already been suing google, adobe and friends?

That's what make patents in theora extremely unlikely IMO. That and the fact that theora devs are extremely cautious on the matter, this is also the reason why theora is not as good as it should be (avoiding patents at all price).

AFAIK YouTube used H.263, not VP6.

Except it did use VP6 and VP7.

Flash has never supported VP7, and the only VP6 on youtube was on self-encoded sponsored channels.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com