Is there a reason that MPEG-LA isn't offering patent indemnification other than they aren't sure H.264 is patent free either?
http://news.ycombinator.net/item?id=2100601
This argument is total FUD.
http://news.ycombinator.net/item?id=2100601
This argument is total FUD.
MPEG-LA doesn't claim H.264 is patent free - they just offer a simplified way to license a large number of patents.
If it is FUD, perhaps you can offer an explanation rather than just deflection.
Both sides are saying (if not expressly then implied) that their licensing technique is believed to be enough, but they can't promise absolute protection.
Both sides are simply not saying the same thing. You are putting words into their mouth to make it look as though the MPEG-LA is saying the same as Google.
I think an unencumbered format would be a good thing, and I'm asking a genuine question. Why is Google making a claim they aren't prepared to back up? Why should other people take the risk for them?
Perhaps there's a good reason for this strategy. I can't see it, so I'm asking if anyone else can?
Saying "the other side is just as bad" is uninformative and just turns the discussion into a question of who's side you're on.
H.264 - paid license, no guarantees of indemnification
Any argument that circumvents the above fact is agenda-driven. People know that WebM is the better choice; but are instead trying to find a roundabout way of keeping their H.264 encoders relevant.
WebM - free license, indemnification against 0 patents.
H.264 - paid license, indemnification against > 1700 patents.
(here's the list: http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/avc-att1.p...)
For WebM to be a free equivalent, Google would have to indemnify users against that list of patents. If Google is sure that the patents are not infringed, why doesn't it at least do that?