Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

This is good news. Theora (the open-source video codec whose development Mozilla is supporting with this grant) is mature and there is an irrevocable license to free use of the original patents covering the compression technology, so there's at least a good chance that it truly is "patent-free".

The downside of Theora is that its compression quality is a generation behind H.264 or the latest Windows Media codecs. But web users in general are not sticklers about video compression artifacts: YouTube was for a long time limited to 320*240 video compressed with Sorenson Spark (a H.263 variant of worse quality than Theora), and that didn't hinder its success. If wide support by next-generation browsers makes it possible to start delivering compelling content in Theora, it has a chance.



What would it take to create a free codec rivaling H.264? Is it a patent issue or a technological one?


It seems to be mostly about patents. The H.264 patent pool contains hundreds of patents owned by 23 organizations. Many of them appear generic enough that any new codec would run a serious risk of infringing them. For example, one of H.264's major improvements over previous codecs is the use of arithmetic coding, and there's a patent in the pool concerning a "method and apparatus for binarization and arithmetic coding of a data value".

(Here's an interesting mini white paper about the codec patent situation: http://www.vcodex.com/videocodingpatents.html )

Worse, there's the possibility of submarine patents that are not included in the H.264 pool. Qualcomm has already attempted to sue Broadcom for making H.264-compliant products that allegedly infringed Qualcomm patents (which Qualcomm had not disclosed when H.264 was being developed). They lost the case, but the US Court of Appeals specifically limited the scope of those patents' unenforceability only to products which are covered by a H.264 license. That means Qualcomm is still free to sue for any independently developed non-H.264 codecs that might be similar enough.


but would people perceive it as being a "low fi" alternative given they are used to the higher quality now? (sure it worked in the past, but we will see).




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: