Cisco & H.264

Authors Jason Self

Plaintext

jxself.org

Cisco & H.264 Home

Cisco's announcement changes nothing about H.264. It's nothing more than a Linux-libre
desperate attempt at grabbing straws. H.264 still patent encumbered. It's still
problematic. Cisco doesn't even make an attempt to hide that their motivation is
GitWeb
nothing less than getting a patent-encumbered codec selected for use in WebRTC. I
urge everyone to ignore it and continue pushing for codecs that are not encumbered
with patent problems. How To

Mozilla has decided to implement support for H.264 in Firefox, since they themselves Articles
can use Cisco's software and get the patent license but this patent license doesn't
cover indepdent implementations, only that which you get from Cisco. Further more, RSS Feed
based on clarifications from Cisco, the royalty free version only comes in a binary
form, rendering it non-free. To really be royalty free the patent license must be
transferrable to anyone that comes into possession of a copy, regardless of where
About Me
they got it from. It also needs to apply to both the binary and source versions.
Contact Me
What about sound? H.264 only covers video. Most people probably want to have
sound. A clarification from Cisco confirms that their expectation is for people to add GPL enforced
support for optional (and patent-encumbered, I might add) codecs on their own. This
leaves people encoding video using H.264 open to patent issues from the audio codec
side because H.264 is not commonly used with an unencumbered audio codec. Some If you appreciate any of the things I
may point to an earlier announcement from MPEG LA that H.264 encoded internet am doing you can make a donation.
video that is distributed at no charge won't be charged royalties, but this obviously
excludes video that is charged for or that isn't being distributed over the internet.
Being royalty free needs to apply to all use cases, not just those that someone else
decides they need to do in order to compete with the ones that really are royalty free.
Thus, Mozilla's decision is shortsighted because H.264 is not going to be free of
patent problems for everyone. Given that patents remain a problem for H.264 I would
have preferred Mozilla to take a stronger stand in favor of unencumbered formats.

It's probably worth nothing that this sort stuff didn't start happening until
unencumbered formats started making inroads. Perhaps the announcements from
MPEG LA and Cisco would never have happened had it not been for competition from
unencumbered formats. Also, nothing I've seen obligates Cisco to continue doing this
going forward (perhaps one day they'll tire of paying these multi-million dollar
royalties) so even if the patent encumbered formats are royalty free (for some limited
use cases only) who can say that they will stay that way going forward? If they're able
to regain lost ground, patent holders may feel less inclined to make concessions or
even discontinue those already granted. It seems similiar to the classic situation
where it's free to get you hooked. To avoid this patent licenses must be irrevocable.
Formats that are not encumbered with patent problems are the only way to avoid
these problems and ensure freedom both now and into the future.