I believe Apple have also lodged a complaint
Microsoft filed a formal antitrust complaint against Motorola Mobility this morning in Brussels, following the European Commission's decision to clear Google's takeover of the mobile biz earlier this month. Redmond's beef with Google relates to "standard essential patents" that MS rather hysterically claimed could be used by …
Which is exactly what is happening here.
You either have to pay 50 quid for "licensed" web or use the free web. Google is killing H264 by the backdoor method.
MSFT and Apple should have thought of this before they officially declared joining forces on killing WebM about a year ago.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Why are you morons cheering for the death of H.264? It was already the industry standard for video before Google went on their little pissing match.
We don't need another format for the web when all of video media is already transmitted using H.264 or changing to it soon. Freeview HD, most satellite channels, most European digital TV, most US digital broadcasts, Blu-ray, mobile devices - all use H.264.
Sometimes the Google fanboism knows no boundaries!
Sometimes the anti-google fanboism knows no boundaries...
H264 is patent encumbered, expensive (if you want to compress), and is stupidly limited. As an example, see what you can do with a "amateur" HD camera, and discover that the biggest difference from a good "amateur" and a "pro" camera is the price. Shoot a movie using the "amateur". Try then selling the result. You'll see what the MPEG-LA trolls will do to you.
And that is just one of the reasons to wanting to see H264 dead and buried.
It is convenient to decode, yes, for now. They have only kept it free to decode because Google came up with WebM. But the plan was always to kill WebM with the typical bogus patents that Apple and MSFT are so in love with, and then start charging.
The paranoia and misinformation around H.264/AVC licensing is frankly shocking. If only people read the actual licensing conditions at:
http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/AVC_TermsSummary.pdf (it's less than 4 pages)
So no, MPEG-LA's H.264 license is not responsible for the price difference between Pro and Amateur cameras. That's frankly a ridiculous theory. H.264 license costs are the same for all types of devices and cameras, ranging from free to a maximum of 20 cents per device (with a maximum yearly cap too).
There are no WebM Professional cameras - don't even know any amateur ones - but my guess if there were you'd see the same price differences, just like "Professional" anything is always much more expensive.
Also no, MPEG-LA will not do anything to you for recording and selling your commercial video, unless you are one of:
"(i) replicators of physical media, and (ii) service/content providers (e.g., cable, satellite, video DSL, internet and mobile) of VOD, PPV and electronic downloads to End Users)".
Even if you are one of the above the fees range from FREE to a maximum of TWO cents per title. Expensive, really?
More outright lies. What MSFT did with that extension was to add support to the browsers RUNNING ON WINDOWS. The support wasn't added to any free browser, as it doesn't work when the free browser is used on a open operating system.
I still have to understand how your lies get so many up-votes...
DRM? Adaptive Streaming? Get a clue. WebM is a codec.
First silicon to market which accelerated WebM was from RockChip, couple of options from them now - Broadcom/VideoCore and TI-OMAP also support it. AMD & ARM are working on it - I guess as they don't fancy the RTL which Google has also open sourced.
5 up votes and everything you said [apart from the last sentence] is wrong, interesting that.
As to hurting the king of patent trolls, they've already been there and done that simply by buying and opening it - the consequent liberalisation has already cost him, and saved us, millions.
Pi is a bad example - it will support ONLY H.264 natively because of licensing costs for other codecs so ironically it had to ditch MPEG-2. Try offering as an individual to license that option back and you probably won't get far. That's ultimately the problem - you can't have what you want even if you're prepared to pay.
1) Google an announces plans to merge with Motorola Mobile
2) M$ and Apple complain to world + dog
3) World + dog look at Merger and clear it.
4) Google announce that there will be no changes to MM's patent licensing charges.
5) M$ and Apple complain to world + dog that Google are over charging
Don't you think that M$ and Apple should have complained to MM before the merger?
this is from the linked article, just to give you an idea what's going on:
"Unfortunately, Motorola has refused to make its patents available at anything remotely close to a reasonable price. For a $1,000 laptop, Motorola is demanding that Microsoft pay a royalty of $22.50 for its 50 patents on the video standard, called H.264. As it turns out, there are at least 2,300 other patents needed to implement this standard. They are available from a group of 29 companies that came together to offer their H.264 patents to the industry on FRAND terms. Microsoft’s patent royalty to this group on that $1,000 laptop?
That’s right. Just 2 cents for use of more than 2,300 patents. (Windows qualifies for a nice volume discount, but no firm has to pay more than 20 cents per unit.) Motorola is demanding that Microsoft pay more than 1,000 times that for use of just 50 patents.
And that is for a mid-level, $1,000 laptop. For a $2,000 laptop, Motorola is demanding double the royalty - $45. Windows is the same on both laptops, and so is the video support in Windows. But the high-end laptop will have a bigger hard drive, more memory, perhaps a titanium case—and Motorola is demanding a hefty royalty on all of this, even though none of these features implements Motorola’s video patents."
Yeah but on the other hand Microsoft is charging Android makers more than 3% from total cost per device so why Morotola can not charge a reasonable 2.25% ?
Oh and by the way, you should check your math, Motorola is asking for constant 2.25% of the price of the device for a 1000$ laptop as well as for a 2000$ laptop. It's the price that doubles not the percentage. At least Motorola is asking that in exchange for real patents not for unspecified ones like MS does.
Besides that, who can decide what is reasonable and what is not ? Is a government going to impose the maximum price for the precious intellectual property companies own ?
not to mention that Microsoft could enter a cross-licensing agreement with Motorola and end up paying nothing. You know, patents allegedly infringed by Android could be exchanged against patents owned by Motorola, it is not that uncommon.
not my maths, that's quote from this article:
and MS doesn't charge 3% on standard essential patents - that's the difference.
[quote] Microsoft will reap $444 million in licensing fees from Android manufacturers this year, charging $3-6 per mobile device, according to a report from Goldman Sachs. [/quote]
It's even worse then if you're telling us MS charges that much for bogus or non-essential patents. Cross-license and it will cost nothing, that's the rule and it's not Google who invented it.
This post has been deleted by its author
Microsoft wont say what patents android allegedly infringes, so any attempt to stop infringing is impossible.
Software patents have an appalling track record for being obvious stuff. Bill Gates said as much in his 1980's memo to get more patents, something along the line of "Just think of what's coming along the line and patent it, it doesn't have to be groundbreaking". The whole patent licensing issue is on extremely bad terms from microsoft.
If Android genuinely infringes patents, then which ones are they? That's the problem I've had with the whole MS patent on Android thing from the get go. MS keeps screaming that Android (and Linux in general for that matter) infringes their patents, but have they ever told anyone specifically which patents are being infringed?
@Bob - I think you don't understand difference between standard essential patents and patents that are not essential to a standard/design/whatever
- meaning that second group encourages you to either pay license fee or work around the patent in question, which means there are another ways to achieve desired result or you can develop your own system/way how to achieve that result which is different than patented technology.
M$ and Apple are just bitter...
beside, I think Apple views is purely on the basis they fear a bitch slapping from the Chocolate Factory, so they're looking to cut off the hand that will deliver it..
I know its probably an unfair view, but they've been bullying HTC, Sumsung etc.. so it'll serve Apple right when that slap finally lands :)
So, a lot of companies spent lots of money on R&D which are used in standard tech. and everyone else must pay at FRAND.
MS & Apple can charge what they want for their patents. These example include FATS, icons displayed in rows, rounded corner on tablets, retrieving phone number from text, 3D UI that's displayed behind the screen. hahahaa.
MS & Apple are making their money on the back some really innovative like IBM, Motorola etc... And they are still complain.
This is even more so for Apple. There's nothing coming out of them even worth mentioning.
When the merger was first announced the ANALists (including elreg by the way) all missed the interesting part of the MM portfolio - everything related to IPTV and codecs from the days when it was the leader in STB development.
Google can use these to beat anyone in the consumer electronics arena into a submission and cross-licensing deal which is exactly what they are doing now.
They have simply set the royalty for them to be reciprocal of what MSFT is asking for their patents from Android (around 2.25% before any discounts). This will be the explanation given back to the EU commission and to the FTC and this explanation will probably stand up to court scrutiny too.
As a side effect it also plays merry hell with the MPEG-LA business model.
Is it nice? Probably no. Is it evil? Do not think so. It is reciprocal - Google is asking same MSFT is asking. Is it fair? Nobody knows because nobody has seen the MSFT patents for which Android manufacturers have to pay 2.25% license fee.
Because I think Barnes and Noble have an issue with your definition of that. ie you want to charge them more then you charge for your entire OS license yet the patents claimed are for minute parts of the OS.
I for one am glad to read that Google finally has a club to hold over these other companies head. the game is and has been a game of mutual assured destruction and it sucks.
I feel ashamed of having supported Google. At one time they seemed to be innovators but now they just copy, sue, force us to use things we don't want and close services we actually wanted (especially angry after the knol announcement!!!)
Now I was just creating a Gmail account for my wife and it asked me for my credit card to create a Google Wallet! Where is this going to end. I'm not recommending Google anymore.
Now MS has to eat the $hit they have served up to many other companies, including *everyone* using Linux. They suggested that Linux would violate dozens of patents they refused to specify. MS and Apple are also trying to suck the blood out of Android vendors (or stop them from selling altogether) and it seems they succeeded in many cases.
Let this patent war heat up even more and make these "highly intelligent executives" reconsider the whole patent system. It is clearly broken (think of Amazon's "one-click" patent) and these people need to feel the heat and then talk to the politicos. Everybody will benefit. It took two wars to end the major wars, let's see how many it will take in the patent belligerence.
"It took two wars to end the major wars"
Oh how I wish you were right about that. From what I can see looking at news from around the world it's been a long time since the possibility of World War III breaking out was comfortably remote. The current hotbed is Iran/Israel. If that flares up it's going to be a real mess. Maybe not a world war, but there are enough nations ready to jump in on one side or the other to make it close enough, especially if someone does something stupid like use nukes or thermobarics in a preemptive strike.
"And Microsoft is making its patents -standard essential and otherwise — available to all Android manufacturers on fair and reasonable terms. In fact, more than 70 percent of Android devices are now licensed to use Microsoft’s patent portfolio."
MS (IMHO) appears to be extorting money from manufacturers of Android devices utilizing patents that at least one company (Barnes & Noble) are paying a legal-team to expose as being irrelevant. Other manufacturers signed an NDA (bad move) so we only hear the voice of MS and their allies in cases like these, and of course their competition is being painted as the bad-guy.
The trouble with "Fair and Reasonable Terms" is that it has never been defined. Fair and Reasonable for whom? If I'm a small start-up then I might be able to afford sweat-equity to write software that adheres to a truly open standard, but I might not be able to pay the additional and ongoing costs of licensing.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021