ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!
Difference between revisions of "HTML5 and video patents"
Ezadetedek (talk | contribs) |
m (Reverted edits by Ezadetedek (talk) to last revision by Ciaran) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | {{navbox}}HTML is the standard, set by [[w3c]], for how to write webpages. HTML5 was supposed to include a standard way to add video to webpages, but after lengthy discussions about [[software patents]], the drafters announced on June 30th 2009<ref>http://lwn.net/Articles/340132/</ref> that they could find no freely implementable video format to recommend. | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | {{navbox}}HTML is the standard, set by [[w3c]], for how to write webpages. HTML5 was supposed to include a standard way to add video to webpages, but after lengthy discussions about [[software patents]], the drafters announced on June 30th 2009 | ||
The two main candidate formats were [[H.264]] and [[Ogg Theora]], but the former is heavily encumbered by patents while the latter's future was deemed questionable because, as [[Google]]'s Chris DiBona said: | The two main candidate formats were [[H.264]] and [[Ogg Theora]], but the former is heavily encumbered by patents while the latter's future was deemed questionable because, as [[Google]]'s Chris DiBona said: | ||
| − | + | <blockquote> | |
| − | ''Here’s the challenge: Can [T]heora move forward without infringing on the other video compression patents?'' | + | ''Here’s the challenge: Can [T]heora move forward without infringing on the other video compression patents?''<ref>http://www.mail-archive.com/whatwg@lists.whatwg.org/msg15476.html</ref> |
| − | + | </blockquote> | |
A third option discussed was to [[use software from 20 years ago]]: MPEG-1. | A third option discussed was to [[use software from 20 years ago]]: MPEG-1. | ||
| Line 18: | Line 10: | ||
HTML is an open [[harm to standards|standard]] and aims to be patent-free. Consequently, the risk of patent encumbrances is posing a real problem in extending HTML to provide a standard video interface. | HTML is an open [[harm to standards|standard]] and aims to be patent-free. Consequently, the risk of patent encumbrances is posing a real problem in extending HTML to provide a standard video interface. | ||
| − | [[Microsoft]] announced in April 2010 that they will only support the heavily patented Mpeg [[H.264]] for the HTML5 video tag. | + | [[Microsoft]] announced in April 2010 that they will only support the heavily patented Mpeg [[H.264]] for the HTML5 video tag.<ref>http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2010/04/29/html5-video.aspx</ref> |
==Other software patent issues for HTML5== | ==Other software patent issues for HTML5== | ||
| − | In 2007, [[Apple]] claim to have patents covering the "canvas" tag, | + | In 2007, [[Apple]] claim to have patents covering the "canvas" tag,<ref>http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-March/010129.html</ref> but they later solved this problem by agreeing to license those patent(s) under the [[w3c]]'s royalty-free terms.<ref>http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/40318/status#current-disclosures</ref> |
==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}== | ==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}== | ||
| Line 55: | Line 47: | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
| − | + | <references /> | |
Revision as of 07:45, 24 November 2010
HTML is the standard, set by w3c, for how to write webpages. HTML5 was supposed to include a standard way to add video to webpages, but after lengthy discussions about software patents, the drafters announced on June 30th 2009[1] that they could find no freely implementable video format to recommend.
The two main candidate formats were H.264 and Ogg Theora, but the former is heavily encumbered by patents while the latter's future was deemed questionable because, as Google's Chris DiBona said:
Here’s the challenge: Can [T]heora move forward without infringing on the other video compression patents?[2]
A third option discussed was to use software from 20 years ago: MPEG-1.
HTML is an open standard and aims to be patent-free. Consequently, the risk of patent encumbrances is posing a real problem in extending HTML to provide a standard video interface.
Microsoft announced in April 2010 that they will only support the heavily patented Mpeg H.264 for the HTML5 video tag.[3]
Contents
Other software patent issues for HTML5
In 2007, Apple claim to have patents covering the "canvas" tag,[4] but they later solved this problem by agreeing to license those patent(s) under the w3c's royalty-free terms.[5]
Related pages on ESP Wiki
- Harm to standards
- Audio-video patents
- H.264
- Companies involved in the drafting: Opera, Apple, Google ... (Microsoft only joined afterward)
- VP8 and WebM - a possible future proposal for HTML?
External links
Drafters discussion
- The June 30th announcement
- The ensuing discussion thread can be read at whatwg.org or [ at gmane.org
- A mail from the HTML5 drafters mailing list - at the bottom, you'll find links to the other mails in that thread. This conversations gives some info on the situation.
Press coverage of the announcement
- Ars Technica's article, July 5th
- Slashdot's initial coverage and later Slashdot discussion
- An Apple forum discussion
- August 2009: Patents, Video, and an Open Internet
- August 2009: Microsoft joins HTML 5 standard fray in earnest (note: this is after the removal of Ogg Theora)
Further analyses afterwards
- Patents and their effect on Standards: Open video codecs for HTML5, from IFOSS Law Review, January 2010
- Nokia's 2007 position paper arguing against Ogg Theora in HTML5
General discussion
- Wikipedia: Use of Ogg formats in HTML5
- Wikipedia: HTML5 video
References
- ↑ http://lwn.net/Articles/340132/
- ↑ http://www.mail-archive.com/whatwg@lists.whatwg.org/msg15476.html
- ↑ http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2010/04/29/html5-video.aspx
- ↑ http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-March/010129.html
- ↑ http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/40318/status#current-disclosures
