OS and Software > All Things Unix > Patent Challenge For Open-Source Codecs?

Patent Challenge For Open-Source Codecs?

said by Tom Krazit :

---

Patent challenge looming for open-source codecs?

If authentic, a new e-mail from Steve Jobs indicates that Apple and Microsoft--of all bedfellows--could be preparing to challenge the validity of open-source video codecs.

Jobs' e-mail to Hugo Roy of the Free Software Foundation Europe, coupled with a similarly worded announcement from Microsoft on Friday, is a shot across the bow of backers of the open-source Ogg Theora video codec, used by Mozilla to bring HTML5 video technology to Firefox. Both Apple and Microsoft plan to use the h.264 codec in their HTML5 strategy, which is governed by a licensing body called MPEG LA. Apple and Microsoft, along with a host of tech companies, are also members of that group.

Roy had challenged Jobs on a component of his "Thoughts on Flash" essay, released Thursday, in which Jobs argued that Apple's approach to mobile video with HTML5 technology was more open than Adobe Systems' Flash technology. Roy took issue with that statement, as use of h.264 requires licensing payments to patent holders, as opposed to being an open standard free for anyone to use.

"A patent pool is being assembled to go after Theora and other 'open source' codecs now," Jobs wrote in the e-mail, which Apple did not immediately confirm as authentic. "Unfortunately, just because something is open source, it doesn't mean or guarantee that it doesn't infringe on others' patents."

In announcing its support for h.264, Microsoft made a similar argument that open-source codecs carry their own set of patent infringement risks.

"The distinction between the availability of source code and the ownership of the intellectual property in that available source code is critical. Today, intellectual-property rights for H.264 are broadly available through a well-defined program managed by MPEG LA. The rights to other codecs are often less clear, as has been described in the press," Microsoft said in its blog post.

The patent saber rattling could present trouble for Mozilla and Google, which supports both h.264 and Ogg Theora in its Chrome browser and is expected in May to announce plans to open-source the VP8 codec it acquired from On2 Technologies. Opera, the other major browser company in the world that uses Ogg Theora, could also be affected by any patent offensive.

Representatives from Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Microsoft declined to address any pending patent moves directly, but it pointed reporters back to its Friday morning blog post.

A representative for the MPEG LA group declined to comment for this story.

Updated 2:33 p.m.: Mozilla issued the following statement: "We believe that it is in the public interest for HTML5 video to be backed by multiple, open and royalty-free codecs available in a way that is consistent with the W3C license standards. We would absolutely consider H.264 if MPEG LA would make it available under open web terms as defined by the W3C standards. We stand by our position on Theora."

Updated 3:33 p.m.: Opera released its own statement from CTO Håkon Wium Lie: ""For the open Web to thrive, all media -- including video -- must be usable without paying licensing fees for codecs. Browser vendors that truly support an open web must work to establish a license-free baseline video codec."

---

Hmm, I wonder how that would affect DivX as it now supports streaming of most everything including XViD/MKV/H.264.

I could care less though, I just download and watch stuff with KMPlayer/VLC players except for YouTube. I seriously doubt anyone has the balls to go after YT/Google.
--

My 9/11 Tribute..online since 9/14/01
Need an Avatar? Check out Wafen's Avatar Pages

reply to SUMware
You see? Symptoms and effects are being addressed; not the underlying cause. Who knows though, this could all just be rumor, after all.

By the way, it might just be the wording, but Mozilla doesn't have support for h.264 in its Firefox browser.

Hey, when you can't compete in a fair game, use aggresive force, even by proxy, against your competitors to keep the upper hand, right? A wonderful moral lesson.

reply to SUMware
The speculation about Apple and Microsoft going after the 'open source codecs' is a bit out there. They're just both backing h.264 because they have the money to pay the fees and paying those fees is somewhat simple for them.

Apple has money invested in hardware supporting h.264 so it would be dumb of them to not back the codec. Microsoft has a grudge for open source so they'll jump on any PR-train that fits their desires if the results don't hurt.
--
Say no to JAMS!

reply to SUMware
Hopefully this horse gets put down before it leaves the stable...

If not... it'll be interesting to use Linux from now on.
--
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

reply to firephoto

said by Hugo Roy :

---

After I published an Open letter to Steve Jobs to comment his article on Flash, about the definition of Open Standards, here's what he answered:

From: Steve Jobs
To: Hugo Roy
Subject: Re: Open letter to Steve Jobs: Thoughts on Flash
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 06:21:17 -0700

A patent pool is being assembled to go after Theora and other "open source" codecs now. Unfortunately, just because something is open source, it doesn't mean or guarantee that it doesn't infringe on others patents. An open standard is different from being royalty free or open source.

Sent from my iPad

---

said by Dean Hachamovitch, General Manager, Internet Explorer, Microsoft :

---

IE9 will support playback of H.264 video only.

Other codecs often come up in these discussions. The distinction between the availability of source code and the ownership of the intellectual property in that available source code is critical. Today, intellectual property rights for H.264 are broadly available through a well-defined program managed by MPEG LA. The rights to other codecs are often less clear, as has been described in the press.

---

I understand what he said. He is not saying Apple is part of this and it would be stupid for a CEO of his caliber to not know about these things going on. There's a lot of buzzword linux news spreading that is pointing the finger with nothing but speculation as the source.
--
Say no to JAMS!

Guess that we'll find out in due course.

It's also worth pointing out there is nothing new here. There have been hints or threats of patent related issues for theora for years. If google owning on2 now makes things better then great but that still doesn't mean the existing patents cover all of what's going on with the codec and that other things are not at risk. Just the speculation and the uncertainty combined with a low acceptance of the codec is enough to keep any major player away from it and those who are listened to have spoken.
--
Say no to JAMS!

I suppose it boils down to how threatened the members of MPEG LA feel by open-source (including Apple & MS) and how willing the members would be to persue patent litigation under the MPEG LA banner. Bet that this tact, and similar contemplated actions, hinge on the upcoming Bilski ruling.

reply to SUMware
Another perspective:

From ZDNet
May 2nd, 2010 -

said by Dana Blankenhorn :

---

Behind the open codec FUD attack

The FUD attack launched against Ogg Theora and VP8, the very idea that they violate patents, is not aimed at the courts, but at the W3C, which held a conference on the coming HTML5 standards last week in Raleigh.

While audio and video files are currently handled through object tags, HTML5 will support standard audio and video tags, support for which will be defined in the browser.

Microsoft and Apple are carrying the water of the content industries, which fear that losing control of the technology under which content is displayed results in losing control of the content itself. That control is expressed through the MPEG LA licensing body.

The $5 million license fee for the H.264 codec required by MPEG LA acts as a barrier to entry, both a financial and moral one. A licensee that doesn’t follow Hollywood’s rules could have its license pulled, and thus its product.

The money is chump change for Microsoft, and the barrier a good thing. It’s a matter of principle for open source.

HTML5 is where that principle is being contested. The W3C policy is not to accept a royalty-bearing, proprietary technology into the Web standard. That’s why video has, until now, been a function separate from the browser.

The attack came now because Mozilla, makers of Firefox, only wants to support truly open codecs under HTML5. Google’s move to open source of VP8 is also said to be preparatory to making it the default codec in Chrome.

If open source becomes the default for HTML5 in Chrome and Firefox (and Opera too) Hollywood loses its technical control. Thus the dark claim by Jobs that a ” patent pool is being assembled to go after Theora and other ‘open source’ codecs now.”

The case is a nonsense.

If Ogg Theora were subject to patent, why would those patent holders allow nearly 160 million downloads (at last count) of the VLC Player, which contains it. Then there’s the question of whether any software patent is valid — we’re still waiting on a Supreme Court decision in Bilski vs. Kappos to settle that question.

Apple and Microsoft have made their money on video by doing what the video owners want. They want to control the Web’s video technology. So Microsoft will only support H.264, Apple darkly mutters about patent suits, and the W3C is supposed to knuckle under, making a proprietary technology part of the Web standard.

If pressed, I have no doubt that a suit would be filed. But even the filing of a suit does not always represent a desire to go to court, only a willingness to do so as part of a larger negotiation.

The suit would magically disappear if H.264 became the Web standard for video, and everyone who wanted to watch a video online were forced to have their software license that codec from MPEG LA.

That’s the issue squarely facing the W3C now.

---

That isn't surprising seeing as the content biz depends on monetizing every transaction pertinent to a given production.

That doesn't make me feel any less disappointed.
--
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

reply to SUMware
An interesting read from OSnews:
Microsoft Attempts To Defend Its H264 Position, Fails - 3rd May 2010

said by Thom Holwerda :

---

ceterum censeo H264 esse delendam

---

That piece says the same thing that I (and countless others) have been wondering for a decade+ as well:

Even after a decade of 'fear, uncertainty, and doubt', the MPEG-LA and its lackies still cannot come up with anything substantial. You'd think that an organisation whose sole raison d'être is managing video codec patents would be able to come up with the patents Theora is supposedly infringing upon.

Same argument for any "infringing" GNU/Linux patents. It is probably more profitable to fund and propagate FUD.
--
Listen...do you smell something?