Breaking Open the Video Frontier, Despite MPEG-LA 66
JimLynch writes "Did you know that nearly every video produced for Web viewing has been, at one point or another, in MPEG format no matter in what format the video is ultimately saved? According to Chris 'Monty' Montgomery, nearly every consumer device outputs video in MPEG format. Which means that every software video decoder has to have MPEG-licensed technology in order to process/edit video."
An interesting snippet: "But there's hope on the horizon. Besides the codecs and formats from the Xiph.Org Foundation, the new WebM format announced by Google in May will ideally provide consumers and developers with another alternative. Montgomery has thrown Xiph.Org support behind WebM, because Google's financial muscle (not to mention their free license) will have a real chance to break the hold MPEG-LA has on the market."
Re:Not nearly every... (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't get me wrong - there's a time and a place for MJPEG. But, DV is on of the trivially easy examples for showing how much better modern technologies perform, considering that HDV works in exactly the same bitrate and tape format, and squashes a *lot* more pixels into the image. HDV isn't even particularly modern technology -- just more modern than DV. When you eliminate tape's need for a constant bitrate and move to a modern file based workflow, many of the AVCHD devices pathologically conpress full 1080p HD into a much lower bitrate than DV while looking just fine for most uses. Seriously, if the AVCHD devices used a bitrate as high as DV, the quality of the output would start to compete with the more expensive professional gear.
Though, the real future is in something like RedcodeRaw. A codec that focuses on being very good at storing sample data from the sensor is one thing that apparently hasn't been much explored in open standards, but it would offer the best performance. When somebody comes out with a DSLR that shoots video in a high bitrate, well-documented sensor-oriented format, they'll own a lot of production overnight.
Between a rock and a hard place (Score:5, Interesting)
The magic time we had when we could possibly have gotten patent reform is past. 10 years ago, this would have been something being done for a non-profit community. Today it would be a grant to Billion-dollar Red Hat and multi-Millionare Mark Shuttleworth, at the expense of inventors. It's going to be really hard to get that to fly politically.
The problem is that Open Source distributions can't license the patents and remain Open Source. So, this is going to be a real killer for Open Source if we let it happen.
The fact is, anyone can install a plugin to play any format they like, and most browser users will, so this is not a matter of whether Open Source browsers support it or not. But browser developers and Open Source projects should continue to lobby for Open codecs, simply to protect themselves from being written out of the market by IP restrictions.
Re:The Snowball's Chance In Hell. (Score:4, Interesting)
Just don't expect that whatever license they have covers the user... Giving people the ability to use their videos commercially without paying off the MPEG-LA yet another time just might be a competitive advantage.
Re:WebM is not the solution (Score:5, Interesting)
You are looking at it too short-term. If the "fight" was being called today and everyone's flash plugin was to magically disappear, you may be right (what about IE users?); but this is a more long-term affair.
In fact, I don't see a one-sided game at all, if Google play their cards right. And, Google does hold some major cards - YouTube, Android, OHA partners, Firefox (Opera and Chrome are not major), and WebM. MS will allow WebM with an optional codec install for IE which can be handled on youtube.com - "user, to play youtube videos we recommend you install this codec", or "to get most out of youtube ... blah blah blah" - I don't know I'm not a marketing expert.
On the other side you'll have Safari (on iOS and OS X) and IE (partially, see above) who will support H.264. This is not exactly a clear-cut battle.
You'll also have recording devices like video cameras, cell phone cameras, etc., but as long as there's the Web in between those and significant part of the consumption of content most of the battle will be fought online, and relatively smaller portion offline.
But first, before any major moves, Google has to make WebM workable - i.e. fully optimized encoders, decoders, quality, etc.; then start making major moves towards its adoption. It seems to me like they are trying to make sure Flash (for video) hangs around long enough for them to accomplish this step. That's why, on the flip side, Apple would want to take out Flash as soon as possible.
"Break" the hold? (Score:5, Interesting)
If the chilling effect of the MGEG-LA patents can be broken, a) I'll be VERY surprised and b) some lawyers didn't do their job right. The only thing that would break them is a judge in a court saying that WebM (or something else) doesn't infringe, and that judgment being upheld through appeal after appeal. By the time a fight of that magnitude was fought to a finish and open source programs were judged "free and clear", the patents would probably be approaching expiration date anyhow. There is a GARGANTUAN financial incentive for these MPEG-LA folks to ensure that no possible video encoding scheme can be regarded as "in the clear". Even a lawsuit without merit is a chilling threat to a small project, and while Google is not small how many resources are they willing to commit to a fight to the finish?
Remember the debate on video in browsers? A lot of the commercial players wouldn't consider any codec that claimed to be patent-free. Was that because they didn't want the risk of an unknown patent appearing and causing trouble? Maybe, but why wouldn't that risk apply for the MPEG-LA codecs as well? They don't claim to cover EVERY relevant patent, just the ones in their portfolio. Do they think the patent-free claims are wrong? Much more likely, but if that's the case why not burst the bubble by identifying the specific infringements (and then insisting people pay up)? Did they want to ensure that they controlled the keys to online video in order to make money with the patent licenses? The cynical side of me tends to think this is the case, in which case no patent-free solution (however legitimate or undoubted) would have stood a chance.
There are of course technical arguments (h264 is very very good) but why not allow something basic as a "baseline" that everyone could have and target? Basic (ancient) MPEG should either be free or close to it, so why not give it the go-ahead as a baseline with h264 as the better option for browsers that support it? If a website doesn't want the bandwidth hit of supporting patent-free formats, fine - but at least the option to target ALL browsers would be there with basic MPEG if the site wanted to incur the costs.
The MERIT of the video format is almost irrelevant if we're talking about a fully free baseline standard. I view performance comparisons as pretty much moot, as long as we're not talking about something absurdly bad - modern bandwidth and computers can do a lot of decent video using only basic MPEG. Who cares if it is twice or three times the size of h264 for the same quality if EVERYONE can view it? Any free standard would break the hold, which is why I don't expect to ever see one accepted universally.
This is a repeat (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a repeat.
Note that there is an interesting history here concerning the H.264 baseline. According to the JVT [itu.int] that created this baseline there was consensus to have this be "patent free" (or, more exactly, royalty free) :
Regarding Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) for the JVT codec, JVT has agreed to the following basic
principles:
The JVT codec should have a simple royalty free “baseline” profile (both on the encoder and
decoder) in order to promote the wide implementation and use of the JVT codec. All implementations
should have such a common baseline profile core, in order to allow minimal interoperability among all
JVT codecs. The above requirement means that all technology applied in the baseline profile shall
have no IPR, expired IPR, or valid but royalty-fee-free IPR (according to Box 2.1 or 2.2.1 of the JVT
Patent Disclosure form, as shown below).
Special, more advanced profiles of the JVT standard may contain patents per Box 2.2 of the JVT
Patent Disclosure form (reasonable terms and conditions).
So, how (besides chutzpah) does MPEG-LA assert licensing rights for the H.264 baseline ? I don't know, but I have heard rumors that the San Diego Qualcomm case [broadcom.com] had something to do with it :
Qualcomm's Patents Rendered Unenforceable and Qualcomm Ordered to Pay Broadcom's Attorneys Fees, Expenses and Costs
IRVINE, Calif., Aug 07, 2007 -- Broadcom Corporation (Nasdaq: BRCM), a global leader in semiconductors for wired and wireless communications, today announced that a San Diego federal court ruled yesterday that Qualcomm Incorporated (Nasdaq: QCOM) engaged in aggravated litigation misconduct and standards abuse with respect to two Qualcomm patents that relate to digital video technology. The court ruled that Qualcomm has thereby waived its rights to enforce all claims of the two patents and any continuations, continuations-in-part, divisions, reissues, or any other derivatives of those patents. The court also ordered Qualcomm to pay all of Broadcom's reasonable attorneys' fees, court costs, expert witness fees, travel expenses and any other litigation costs reasonably incurred by Broadcom in defending the patent infringement case that led to the rulings.
Citing the misconduct of Qualcomm's employees, witnesses, and counsel before, during and after trial, the court found that "Broadcom proved this to be an exceptional case by clear and convincing evidence based on (1) Qualcomm's bad faith participation in the H.264 standard-setting body, the Joint Video Team (JVT); and (2) the litigation misconduct of Qualcomm through its employees, hired outside witnesses, and trial counsel during discovery, motions practice, trial and post-trial proceedings." According to the court, "Qualcomm closely monitored and participated in the development of the H.264 standard, all the while concealing the existence of at least two patents it believed were likely to be essential to the practice of the standard, until after the development was completed and the standard was published internationally. Then, without any prior letter, email, telephone call, or even a smoke signal, let alone attempt to license Broadcom, Qualcomm filed the instant lawsuit against Broadcom for infringement of the '104 and '767 patents."
This experience seems to have left a bad taste in the mouth of the video standards industry concerning royalty free patents. This is shear speculation, but I also have to wonder if this has something to do with MPEG-LA's reluctance to date to charge royalties for the H.264 baseline.
Re:"Break" the hold? (Score:1, Interesting)
Any free standard would break the hold, which is why I don't expect to ever see one accepted universally.
Exactly, this already happened with JPEG.
There were two entropy coding schemes defined in the standard : (patent free) static Huffman and (patent based) Arithmetic Compression. In order to implement Arithmetic Compression, you simply had to ***ask IBM for permission***. Nobody ever implemented arithmetic compression in JPEG, although the resulting files were about 10% smaller than when using Huffman. As long as the difference is not HUGE, everybody will stick with the free version...