Google planira da otvori VP8 video codec

calimero
pa kako VLC ne placa nista MPEG LA a ima integrisan h264 encoder ??????????????

mmix
Zar ne znate za jadac, samim tim sto sam snimak snimio sa avchd kamerom royalti ostaje bez obzira na krajnji format :). Ogg/Theora meni resava krajnji problem (uz naravno uvek prisutni problem sa patentnom sacekusom) i mogu ja da ga encodiram u Theoru ali svejedno moram da im platim za h264 jer je h264 ucestvovao u izradi materijala.

Koliko kamera ima sad za kupiti koje direktno snimaju sa senzora preko theore u ogg?

A drugo, ista firma drzi i patent poolove za VC1 i MPEG2, zar ne, i sam si rekao da je mpeg2 skuplji od h264? Vecina patent holdera u poolu je ista, cak je i dobar deo samih patenata ukljucen u sve te poolove. Mislim da si mnogo blizu ove cele price da bi video posledice, da se radi o bilo kojoj drugoj indusriji prvi bi vikao faul.

Sadly you can’t even get away from this by transcoding your MPEG2 or H.264 video into a free format for two reasons, firstly the camera most likely uses it internally first (and that’s apparently enough) and secondly the MPEG-LA claim their patent portfolio is so broad that you cannot create a video codec these days without infringing one of their patents. So theoretically you’d need to pay no matter what you did.

Another way to get mpeg-free video is to record via HDMI, directly to the desktop PC (and bypass the SD/CF card). However, this is NOT an 100%-proof way of going around MPEG-LA, because some cameras still use their codecs to do some processing (since HDMI-output is still not "true" RAW).

Upravo sam pogledao i za moju kemeru, a i drugi su isto tako to videli i na daleko skupljim kamerama (ovde, ovde i ovde) i stoje personal use only license. Tako da imas paradoksalnu situaciju da i profesionalne kamere od $10,000+ imaju samo home-video licencu, za vise (a vise je bilo koja varijanta u kojoj snimak donosi kes direktno ili indikrektno) moras da nagodis svoju dodatnu licencu sa MPEG LA.

Samo od book keepinga bi mi glava otpala. I zato mislim da su bezobrazni jer misle da su mnogo bolji od svih ostalih.

Standard setting organizations commonly have rules that govern the ownership of patent rights that cover the standards they adopt. One of the most common rules is that a patent covering the standard must be adopted on "reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms" (RAND) or "fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms" (FRAND). The two terms are generally interchangeable; FRAND seems to be preferred in Europe and RAND in the U.S.[1]

In licensing, Fair, Reasonable and Non Discriminatory terms (FRAND) refers to the obligation that is often required by Standards Setting Organizations (SSOs) for members which participate in the standard setting process.[2] Standards Setting Organizations are the industry groups which set common standards for particular industry in order to ensure compatibility and interoperability of devices manufactured by different entities.

Standards Setting Organizations include this obligation in their bylaws as a means of enhancing the pro-competitive character of their industry. They are intended to prevent members from engaging in licensing abuse based on the monopolistic advantage generated as a result of having their intellectual property rights (IPR) included in the industry standards. Without such commitment, members could use monopoly power inherent in a standard to impose unfair, unreasonable and discriminatory licensing terms that would damage competition and inflate their own relative position. While there are no legal precedents to spell out specifically what the actual terms mean, it can be interpreted from the testimony of people like Professor Mark Lemley from Stanford University, in front of the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary that the individual terms are defined as follows:

Fair relates mainly to the underlying licensing terms. Drawing from anti-trust/competition law; fair terms means terms which are not anticompetitive and that would not be considered unlawful if imposed by a dominant firm in their relative market. Examples of terms that would breach this commitment are; requiring licensees to buy licenses for products that they do not want in order to get a license for the products they do want (bundling), requiring licensees to license their own IP to the licensor for free (free grant backs) and including restrictive conditions on licensees’ dealings with competitors (mandatory exclusivity).

Reasonable refers mainly to the licensing rates. A reasonable licensing rate is a rate charged on licenses which would not be result in an unreasonable aggregate rate if all licensees charged a similar rate. Clearly aggregate rates that would significantly increase the cost to the industry and make the industry uncompetitive are unreasonable. It is worth noting that a licensor which has several different licensing packages might be tempted to have both reasonable and unreasonable packages. However having a reasonable “bundled” rate does not excuse having unreasonable licensing rates for smaller unbundled packages. All licensing rates must be reasonable.

Non-Discriminatory relates to both the terms and the rates included in licensing agreements. As the name suggests this commitment requires that licensors treat each individual licensee in a similar manner. This does not mean that the rates and payment terms can’t change dependent on the volume and creditworthiness of the licensee. However it does mean that the underlying licensing condition included in a licensing agreement must be the same regardless of the licensee. This obligation is included in order to maintain a level playing field with respect to existing competitors, and to ensure the potential new entrants are free to enter the market on the same basis.

mmix

A i nisam pricao o prisilnom oduzimanju prava nikome, samo konstatujem da realna same-level konkurencija ne postoji jer da postoji pritisak trzista bi ih naterao da se odreknu royaltia i da se zadrze na licenciranja alata/uredjaja, kao sto takav pritisak redovno deluje u softverskoj industriji. Nije to bas neka mudrost, royalti seme su postojale u pocetku u appdevu za raznorazne gluposti i svi koji su ih naplacivali su ili propadali uz metodologiju ili menjali biznis plan da se adaptiraju. Iz nekog razloga to se ne desava sa h264 i pored sve tvrdnje da konkurencija postoji.

Nero Files Antitrust Case Against MPEG-LA

Beeney, who will be defending the case with his colleague Michael Steinberg, told us that similar allegations against patent licensors have been rejected by various jurisdictions, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Princo v. U.S. Philips.

Kad smo kod royalty-free formata, jel ista prica vazi i za HDV?

Nije to bas neka mudrost, royalti seme su postojale u pocetku u appdevu za raznorazne gluposti i svi koji su ih naplacivali su ili propadali uz metodologiju ili menjali biznis plan da se adaptiraju. Iz nekog razloga to se ne desava sa h264 i pored sve tvrdnje da konkurencija postoji.

Da li postoji >podjednako dobra< tehnologija koja je jeftinija od H.264 - o tome mozemo diskutovati, medjutim nema apsolutno nicega loseg ili anti-kompetitivnog u tome da postoji superiorna tehnologija koja zahteva price premium.