|
|
|
| Authored by: designerfx on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 08:44 AM EST |
would there even be precedent of such behavior?
other judges in other states have said they shouldn't be
involved in these negotiations.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 01:18 AM EST |
Who currently licenses Moto's 264 SEPs for interlaced video?
I'm honestly asking the question bc I have no idea who uses interlaced 264
video besides MS. Webcam and Video Chat companies?
Apple's Mac and iOS platforms don't support the feature.
AVIs on the net that use interlaced video usually are not in h.264 format.
Who uses interlaced h.264 on a wide scale?
Interlaced h.264 was a stopgap solution when some webcams and video
recorders didn't support progressive scan? Are these still in widespread
use?
Why is Google doing the exact thing the claimed that they feared MPEG-LA
would do.
Wasn't WebM/VP8 bought and supported by Google in 2010 so they
wouldn't be held at ransom by companies like Moto in this situation.
And now Google became the patent troll that they were preaching against?
Times have changed[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
