Comments on: Sony / Phillips vs MS codec battle

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:41:55 +0000

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 08 Mar 2005 18:20:13 +0000

Apple’s crap?? What are you on about?
Whee Quicktime 7 is released it’ll put H.264 infront of huge amounts of people, quicker than any other form of distribution. People using QT 7 will be the 1st mass-generation creating H.264 content. Anybody using or buying a Mac will automatically have access to the technology, and it’ll be a simple download for anybody on Windows.
QT7 & H.264 will show just what a terrible technology Windows Media 9/10 is.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 02 Mar 2005 15:13:35 +0000

Crushing it ain’t. M$ can afford the $15 – $20 billion fine that will be imposed on them, although it will certainly affect them deeply. Besides, after the ruling M$ will likely have to pay $3-$15 for each codec it ships.

My guess is they’ll just try to wiggle out of this by offering patent swaps and more access to Windows source code plus several billion ($5 billion) in damages, although obviiously on the condition that they won’t have to confess guilt. The main sticking point will be whether subsequent royalty payments. My guess is that M$ wants to avoid this at all costs. Therefore I see a judicial ruling as inevitable. It will be a huge bet by Microsoft because if they lose they will be effectively ejected from the media market.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 02 Mar 2005 06:10:09 +0000

It’s interesting that this happening now as we move into HDTV. Both M$ and Apple have taken mpeg4, an advance on the current mpeg2 codecs and claimed them as their own. Go check out Apples crap about the new quicktime, although they do mention colaborators unlike M$.

Possibly, one can but hope, Sony et al have laid an ambush for M$ by enticing it to do just what this fine article describes. As he says it could be crushing. Ah well I can dream can’t I .

PenGun

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 02 Mar 2005 01:15:05 +0000

Convincing arguments and well deliberated.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:25:50 +0000

I’d use it as an indication that Microsoft don’t think a ’software patent’ is a valid piece of property either … just like a ‘perpetual motion machine patent’… and try to get on with my life.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 01 Mar 2005 14:46:37 +0000

Help cut MS down to size. And maybe adjust Microsofts attitude re software patents in the process…

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 01 Mar 2005 11:04:16 +0000

So if SCO can lodge a suit and demand source from IBM, surely Philips/Sony can lodge one against MS (the company, not the disease) and demand to see the source in discovery??

The difference would be they’d have legs to stand on.

Max in Oz

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:24:52 +0000

Maybe he was hired to “feel out the response”?

Given Microsoft’s past history of patent abuse, and spectacular wins by companies like Eolas (over far less interesting “innovation”), why would Sony or Phillips accept anything less than a full scale rout of Microsoft, a burn-their-tails forced retreat from abuse of their CE products?

I can’t see any reason. Those are mighty deep pockets, and if abuse is as deep as hinted in the article, a “quietly settled” approach will probably do little or nothing to stop long-term abuse.

Grab the money and run, Sony/Phillips. One or two more situations like this and maybe Microsoft pockets won’t be as deep, you’ll be holding an empty settlement bag and a destroyed consumer market potential too.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 02:06:45 +0000

Lots and losts of bs.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 27 Feb 2005 23:42:35 +0000

please let it be so.. that piece of crap codec being pushed everywhere that’s compatible with nothing and has terrible performance as well.

DIE WMV DIE!