What are Microsoft codecs?

[gilpel at altern.org]

Frank Murphy wrote:

> On 07/08/09 06:53, gilpel at altern.org wrote:

>> (1) Many thanks to Frank Murphy for a few helpful lines on the matter.

>> This said, I hope we can go on with determining if windows media codecs
aren't, just as doc and xls formats, anything but a marketing scam.

> Windows media codecs, and indeed "patented" software in general, are a
way for various companies to make money.
> You will notice as soon as a patent comes near it's end,
> oh, suddenly this new codec appears, which will be flavour of the month.
This is just a method, keep the wallets full from a patent pov.

I think the same but, you know, video codecs seem a more complicated
matter than document formatting code. If you can get <B>bold</B> as easily
as this, you're not far from understanding that, since Microsoft is
producing Word, doc tags could be as simple.

So, I thought it would be interesting to have somebody explain the matter
from a technical POV, an Alan Cox of video streaming, if you wish :)

This patent way of doing things sometimes has some funny consequences. In
a document on using Linux on its site, Radio-Canada, the state television
and ally of Microsoft, has to suggest to use MPlayer:

Le plugiciel vidéo recommandé par Radio-Canada.ca est MPlayer.

(The video plugin recommanded by Radio-Canada.ca is MPlayer)

http://www.radio-canada.ca/apropos/aide/pdf/Linuxconsolevideo.pdf

They even suggest to remove all other plugins!

Of course, they can't explain to taxpayers that they'll have to pay
Microsoft to watch state television :)


Some people here seem to suggest that my goal for starting this thread is
to pressure Red Hat into providing proprietary codecs. It's not and it's
never been.

As I already said, Red Hat as a publicly traded company, is free to run
their business as they wish. Beside, Ubuntu and Debian, which are not in
the same situation, act the same. Legally, matters are often complex and
facing Microsoft's legal department must not be a happy perspective.

It would just be nice if, instead of letting threads go on endlessly, it
was clearly told that Totem is very unlikely -- despite Radio-Canada
pretending so -- to play WMV unless you buy Fluendo and that MPlayer
offers a free alternative that Red Hat doesn't endorse.

--snip--

> If it was just about the content, they would make sure to use a really
free and open method, has not HTML5 video already no longer the shine in
the eye, due to objections from Apple.

My memory of HTML5 is rather vague. Let's see:

"HTML 5 was initially said to become a game-changer in Web application
development, making obsolete such plug-in-based rich Internet application
(RIA) technologies as Adobe Flash, Microsoft Silverlight, and Sun
JavaFX.[1] Such applications would be made obsolete by specifying a
standard video codec for all browsers to use. However, in July 2009, the
editor of the burgeoning draft specification dropped the recommendation of
the free software Theora and Vorbis codecs, after opposition from Apple
and Nokia. This means HTML 5 does not currently specify a common video
codec for Web development."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML_5

And Nokia has bought Trolltech. What a wonderful world we live in! :) I
wonder if most KDE developers stayed when Nokia took control of QT.

Surely, if Apple and Nokia hadn't opposed, Microsoft would. Wasn't the
internet supposed to be a level playing field?

Thanks for your interesting contribution. After all, it seems that not
evrybody want to keep certain subjects under the rug.