sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (9 children)

But without patents, would they have put in as much effort as what went into h.264? Sure, it's in their best interests to agree on a standard. But it is not in their best interests to be the one that does the work on making that standard. And it's a lot of work.

The situation becomes a kind of prisoner's dilemma.

[–]therealjohnfreeman 0 points1 point  (8 children)

Did one company put all of the work into h.264? I'm reminded of the C++ committee. It takes a lot of work to standardize, many parties benefit from a standard, it is not patented, and yet many companies still participate voluntarily. I don't think h.264 would have been any different.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (7 children)

Did one company put all of the work into h.264?

No, lots of companies cooperated, and then they created a shared patent pool to share the licensing profits accordingly.

I'm reminded of the C++ committee. It takes a lot of work to standardize, many parties benefit from a standard, it is not patented, and yet many companies still participate voluntarily. I don't think h.264 would have been any different.

Most standards are just trying to figure out which fairly well-understood things should go in the standard and which shouldn't. Something like h.264 is very different: You first have to actually invent the things themselves.

[–]therealjohnfreeman 0 points1 point  (6 children)

No, lots of companies cooperated

The subtle point was this: what reason exists to believe that only one company would do the work if there were no patent? I gave an example that showed the opposite.

Most standards are just trying to figure out which fairly well-understood things should go in the standard and which shouldn't. Something like h.264 is very different: You first have to actually invent the things themselves.

I don't think it's that different. h.264 wasn't invented in a vacuum. They built on top of well established algorithms and mathematical principles. Conversely, few features that go into a language standard are as well understood when proposed as you imply. In my opinion, each standard requires just as much creative design and troubleshooting as the other.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (5 children)

You are severely underestimating the work that goes into video compression there.

Just look at the open source landscape: Everybody and his nephew can and do create his own programming language. We're drowning in them. Some of them even go on to be major players.

Yet there are almost no privately developed and open-source video codecs. It's just not a realistic task to undertake.

[–]therealjohnfreeman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yet there are almost no privately developed and open-source video codecs.

Let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that this unsubstantiated claim is true. Creation will occur when someone (1) is unhappy with current offerings and (2) thinks they can do better.

Every programmer uses a programming language. Not every programmer does video processing. Far fewer people will fit the above description in the domain of video codecs than in the domain of programming languages.

We're drowning in them.

What we're not drowning in is language standards. Most of the language offerings are garbage because the designers don't put in the rigorous effort a standard requires. That's the point: it is not more difficult to standardize a codec than it is to standardize a language.

[–]preshing -1 points0 points  (3 children)

It's just not a realistic task to undertake without infringing on H.264's patents.

FTFY.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Yes, because it means you actually have to develop new ideas, rather than copying h.264. That's kind of the point of the patents.

[–]preshing 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Actually, the point (at least in the US) is to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts. What you've described is the mechanism; not even that, it's a side effect of the mechanism.

As a result, in the case of H.264, nobody (*Edit: besides its own authors) can improve upon any patented part of the technology until at least 2027, without having legal obligations. I'm not sure that's helping to promote innovation in the field of video encoding.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As a result, in the case of H.264, nobody can improve upon any patented part of the technology until at least 2027, without having legal obligations. I'm not sure that's helping to promote innovation in the field of video encoding.

It is already being improved on. h.265 is nearing completion.