●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
by_Hiro_ ( 151911 ) writes:
It seems like Apple has something against implementing any Xiph codec... FLAC and Vorbis support in iTunes is nonexistent, and even with the QuickTime plugin, iTunes still doesn't have proper tagging support. And now refusing to add Theora support in Safari?
Perhaps someone on the Xiph board did something to one of Apple's Media guys when they were kids or something?
byAnonymous Coward writes:
Apple have their own Lossless Codec. The ipod hardware chips don't do Vorbis.
byAnonymous Coward writes:
The "official" reason per FTA is:
Apple refuses to implement Ogg Theora in Quicktime by default (as used by Safari), citing lack of hardware support and an uncertain patent landscape.
My emphasis. That's some balls to claim that you can't implement Theora because of patent concerns.
bylarry bagina ( 561269 ) writes:
The fact that it's open source or royalty free doesn't mean there are no patent trolls ready to file a lawsuit once Apple or Microsoft use it.
It would be nice if Congress could pass a law for proposed standards to give patent trolls a 6 (or 3) month period to announce any infringement or forever hold their peace.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byradtea ( 464814 ) writes:
The fact that it's open source or royalty free doesn't mean there are no patent trolls ready to file a lawsuit once Apple or Microsoft use it.
Likewise, simply because the MPEG LA controls the licensing of KNOWN patents for H.264 doesn't mean there are no patent trolls ready to file a lawsuit once it gets adopted as a standard.
There is also no assurance that the MPEG LA won't try to monetize their position as the sole licensing authority for H.264 if it were to be adopted into the standard. Unisys anyone?
So Apple's case would only be plausible if they can show that there is any reason to believe that the software-patent-related risk is higher for Theora than H.264, and they have not done that.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byMightyMartian ( 840721 ) writes:
Mod this up. There isn't anything beyond "Hello World" programs that doesn't care the risk of some submarine patent, and hell, maybe there's some prick standing in line in Waco, TX right now with a patent application for a software process that "writes a greeting to a terminal or command line session's standard output". No one can't be sure that every single codec ever made or that will ever be made isn't somehow encumbered in some way or another by some patent troll, because the patent system is ludicrou
bytepples ( 727027 ) writes:
Likewise, simply because the MPEG LA controls the licensing of KNOWN patents for H.264 doesn't mean there are no patent trolls ready to file a lawsuit once it gets adopted as a standard.
Unlike non-profits such as Xiph, major corporations such as Apple own patents that they can use to counter-sue patent holders that show up late to the MPEG-LA party.
bytepples ( 727027 ) writes:
Anonymous Coward wrote:
Mod this offtopic or nonsense.
Whether or not it can or can't is completely irrelevant for the reason given by apple.
Apparently, the use of the Offtopic moderation reason on Slashdot has suddenly grown much more strict over the past few days. Let me connect it directly to the article. In the Ars article, Ryan Paul wrote:
Apple objects to Ogg Theora, claiming that the lack of known patents on Theora doesn't rule out the threat of submarine patents that could eventually be used against adopters.
The situation around H.264 is more certain for two reasons: First, its developers are certain that they ca
bytepples ( 727027 ) writes:
And third, you seem to confuse "high profile web sites" with high profile companies.
The point is that if a party outside the MPEG-LA pool really wanted to press the H.264 issue, it would probably have announced plans to sue Google, which operates the YouTube video hosting service.
●our current threshold.
● current threshold.
● current threshold.
byTheTurtlesMoves ( 1442727 ) writes:
The same goes for H.264. In fact the already has been more patent trolls with H.264 than with theora....
byasa ( 33102 ) writes:
"The fact that it's open source or royalty free doesn't mean there are no patent trolls ready to file a lawsuit once Apple or Microsoft use it. "
The same could be said for h.264 or any other technology they license. Patent trolls are patent holders that we don't know about, even if we think we're licensing a technology from a currently known set of patent holders.
bytepples ( 727027 ) writes:
It would be nice if Congress could pass a law for proposed standards to give patent trolls a 6 (or 3) month period to announce any infringement or forever hold their peace.
I believe there is already such a defense at equity, called estoppel by laches [wikipedia.org]. It's not as strong for copyrights and patents as it is for trademarks, but it's still available.
●ent threshold.
●nt threshold.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
-- Roy Santoro
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...