| ▲ | VladVladikoff 6 hours ago |
| I’m confused about this. If I have video on my website that is encoded in x264 am I obligated to pay fees? |
|
| ▲ | adrian_b 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Not if you are in Europe or in any other place where the H.264 patents have expired. The patents are still valid in USA, Brazil and a few other places. |
| |
| ▲ | silotis 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | *Claimed to still be valid. If you're just hosting videos on your website you are probably using High Profile which was standardized in March of 2005, i.e. more than 20 years ago. That doesn't stop VIA and MPEG-LA from claiming they still have relevant patents, but that claim is dubious and hasn't been tested in court. | | |
| ▲ | ndiddy 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Note that there's some patents that haven't yet expired, at least in the US. AFAIK this is because if there's delays in patent examination you get extra duration on your patent to compensate. Here's a list of the patents that were filed before High Profile was standardized and are still valid: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Have_the_patents_for_H.264_M... Of course MPEG-LA deliberately makes figuring out which patents cover which parts of H.264 (which is really a set of multiple standards spanning a 10+ year period) ambiguous and hard to determine in order to sell more licenses. | |
| ▲ | themafia 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > *Claimed to still be valid. I can't afford to claim otherwise. |
| |
| ▲ | panny an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | How are these software patents still valid after Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International precedent? Or is this a case where companies just pay the fee because it's cheaper than fighting it in court? |
|
|
| ▲ | charcircuit 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Only if it is used commercially. If it is a free video you do not have to pay fees. |
