MS Mugged over VC-1!

[Maximus]

The best read in ages, it turns out that MS have little to no IP in VC-1 after all.

Link

Sixteen companies, including MS are entitled to royalties earned from the use of VC-1, while MS may have a larger share than some companies, it is not that much.

Out of the 125 patents required to use VC-1 only two of them have been attributed to Microsoft, I wonder what Amir will have to say about this.

It turns out that Sony have more patents in VC-1 than MS by what seems like a big margin, now will we see an end to the codec war?

[RUR]

This is hilarious! Have you posted this over in Amir-land?

Nevermind, I see you have.

[Nismobeach]

Gotta love the irony in the fact that M$ preaches about upholding IP rights, and yet time and time again it's shown that most of their business is based on the exact opposite of that.

[phloyd]

Priceless, just priceless.

This is my favourite quote:

The patent position for H.264 looks remarkable similar to VC-1, which isn’t too surprising since everyone we’ve spoken to says that the technologies are virtually identical anyway.

RoFL!

[WriteSimply]

Well Amir have said almost at the start that Microsoft basically gave their profit interest away with VC-1 and HDi.

I guess in a way he is right but not in the "Microsoft is altruistic" way.


fuad

[Zinn]

Now lets digg it!

http://digg.com/tech_news/Microsoft_...c_patent_terms

[Shin-Ra]

Amazing, I wonder what else they're hiding Well now I won't feel so guilty about buying content with VC-1 encoding.

[Rio]

Old story. When the VC9 spec was disclosed during the submitting process to the SMPTE, some of compression technology engineers said that it was just a variant of AVC - almost all algorithms were same as AVC but optimised for PC computation. Before or after the disclosure of VC9 (former name of VC-1), some companies who had IPs for video compression technologies and were also the customers of MS (as PC vendors), they tried to argue about IPR infringement by MS for WMV, but MS had an outrageous terms in its Windows licence agreement, so those companies could not get any royalties from MS. That's the history of VC-1 (or VC9 or WMV9)...

[Shadowself]

Saw this on The Register...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04...odec_analysis/

I wonder what the A-man will say about this?

Thoughts? Comments?

[JTK]

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=7702

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by Rio

Old story. When the VC9 spec was disclosed during the submitting process to the SMPTE, some of compression technology engineers said that it was just a variant of AVC - almost all algorithms were same as AVC but optimised for PC computation. Before or after the disclosure of VC9 (former name of VC-1), some companies who had IPs for video compression technologies and were also the customers of MS (as PC vendors), they tried to argue about IPR infringement by MS for WMV, but MS had an outrageous terms in its Windows licence agreement, so those companies could not get any royalties from MS. That's the history of VC-1 (or VC9 or WMV9)...

Rio, what are your lot at Panasonic saying, it turns out you have much more IP in VC-1 than MS, are you guys as opposed to it as before?