More Interesting news on Tech Bullying

[MoonRise]

Behind the open codec FUD attack

[GreyGeek]

Re: More Interesting news on Tech Bullying

Apple and Microsoft resorting to outright lies to denigrate an Open Source codec in the media is only the visible part of the attack. What you don't see is the secret meetings with W3C members where, more than likely, more effective influence is "applied" ... pictures of dead Presidents changing hands.

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010...dimension.html

All of the recent activity surrounding video codecs is undoubtedly related to the question of which codec(s) will become part of the HTML 5 web standard or, in the absence of an official standard, will evolve into a de facto standard in connection with HTML 5.

HTML 5 will be the first version of the web markup language to have <audio> and <video> tags and XML-based interfaces for controlling media players.
...
The W3C's current set of requirements leaves only two kinds of options for W3C standards:

• patent-free standards (which may be the case if a standard was published before anyone might have filed patents on it, in which case the standard could be used as prior art to invalidate patents filed by others later)
  
• standards for which licenses to all relevant patents are available on a royalty-free basis

Licenses to the undisputed market leader in web video, the H.264 standard, are available from the MPEG LA patent pool firm on commercial terms. The need to pay royalties makes H.264, despite being a de facto standard, a non-option for the W3C under its current set of rules.
...
Some browser makers, especially Mozilla, Google and Opera, would like an open-source codec such as Theora to become part of HTML 5. While the availability of those codecs on open-source terms seemingly ensures compliance with the W3C's requirements, proprietary vendors such as Apple and Microsoft consider the patent situation surrounding such formats unclear. They are, however, comfortable that those who obtain a license to H.264 from MPEG LA are reasonably safe from patent hold-up.

Ergo, the the reason why Apple and Microsoft are slinging so much FUD around. It isn't for you, or me, or the general public. It's only purpose is to con the W3C into believing HTML5 users will be safer with H.264 than with a FOSS codec. Of course, only Apple and Microsoft could/would pay the $5M H.264 license fee, which would make an effective entrance barrier for Linux distros and/or FOSS browsers. Of course, money will make an excellent lubricant to help them swallow the proprietary codec despite their previous position regarding proprietary technology in HTML.