Intel Considers Hardware Acceleration For Google's WebM Format 139
CWmike writes "Intel is considering hardware-based acceleration for Google's new WebM video file format in its Atom-based TV chips if the format gains popularity, an Intel executive said on Thursday. Announced last Wednesday at Google I/O, WebM files will include video streams compressed with the open-source VP8 video codec, which was acquired by Google when it bought On2 Technologies in February. 'Just like we did with other codecs like MPEG2, H.264 and VC1, if VP8 establishes itself in the Smart TV space, we will add it to our [hardware] decoders,' said Wilfred Martis, a general manager at Intel's Digital Home Group."
Nice (Score:2)
It would be nice to have hardware support.. and the support of Intel.. and guess they don't want to be accused of favoring some parties and not others.. and certainly there is a cost to adding to the hardware but still is it not also a chicken and egg problem?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No offense, but I'd be happier to see theora support added first, since that is more or less guaranteed to be devoid of current patent litigation.
If they added 'webm' support as well I wouldn't mind though :
Re:Nice (Score:5, Funny)
What about hardware support for animated GIFs, if today is "ridiculous uses for an FPGA day" ?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I want hardware support for Windows XP search dog. Do it intel!
Re: (Score:2)
Hardware acceleration for my coffee pot in the morning would be nice, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Hardware acceleration for my coffee pot in the morning would be nice, too.
Why don't you just throw it out of the window?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When the chicken is youtube the egg better hurry the hell up or the farmers will be pissed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nice (Score:5, Insightful)
As for costs, it wouldn't surprise me if the format was designed(in part) to keep those low. Remember the analysis [multimedia.cx] linked to here a few days ago? The punchline was, in essence "very much like h.264, except in a few specific ways that are largely worse". Now, assuming that the On2 people aren't complete morons(which would also imply that their new Google overlords are complete suckers), why would they create a codec like that?
Well, h.264 is the best supported(in terms of software, and embedded hardware decoders) of modern video formats. It is also considered to be quite good, the product of research by a large number of people and entities. However, it is patent encumbered. Therefore, you would expect a rational competitor to do the following: Copy h.264 as closely as possible in all unpatented respects, or respects where patents can be worked around. Nobody is giving you any extra credit for re-inventing the wheel, and (unless you have particular reasons to believe the contrary) trying to do so would likely result in a worse wheel. Where the spec is simply too patent encumbered, implement the least-worst replacement for that bit that isn't encumbered.
Based on that technical analysis, it strikes me as extremely likely that this is more or less what On2 did. Do a patent search, presumably focusing on the MPEG-LA pool, and any other likely suspects. For any parts of h.264 too heavily covered to engineer around the patents, make the smallest legally tenable compromise.
Since the vast majority is extremely similar to h.264, this will likely make adding hardware support cheaper, since most of the dedicated decoder logic and/or embedded DSP firmware can be shared between h.264 and WebM, with small additions to cover the differences.
Not the first time (Score:5, Informative)
Its not the first time that someone has had to build and incredibly similar version yet slightly worse, just to fill a civic need. On2 is doing what Tesla did when Edison prevented him from using his lightbulb design.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Actually Tesla's version was superior to Edison's, do your research.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Except that On2 didn't create VP8 out of charity. If it wasn't for Google buying them, VP8 would have never been open sourced.
Re: (Score:2)
Never is a long time. Did you know Theora is based on VP3 [vp3.com]? Eventually they probably would have done the same thing, just not so soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Google is doing what Tesla did when Edison prevented him from using his lightbulb design.
There, fixed that for you
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
However, it is patent encumbered. Therefore, you would expect a rational competitor to do the following: Copy h.264 as closely as possible in all unpatented respects, or respects where patents can be worked around. Nobody is giving you any extra credit for re-inventing the wheel
The problem here is that H.264 licensors are industrial giants like Mitsubishi Electric.
Philips. Samsung. LG. Fujitsu. Hitachi, NTT...
It's easy to forget that H.264 is a broadcast standard:
NTT Electronics has produced the world's fi
Re: (Score:1)
or is it?
Seems to me more and more people are actually watching videos from the net, or via their provider's private net, not via DVB-T and friends.
Re: (Score:2)
Since the vast majority is extremely similar to h.264, this will likely make adding hardware support cheaper, since most of the dedicated decoder logic and/or embedded DSP firmware can be shared between h.264 and WebM, with small additions to cover the differences.
That's overly optimistic. They'll both use completely separate code paths.
But since they decode in similar ways, any hardware optimized for decoding H.264 will decode VP8 very well.
The chicken and egg question..for non-creationists (Score:1)
Maybe if it gets popular? (Score:3, Informative)
How long will it take to get popular? 1 year?
How long will it take to design the hardware implementation? 6 months?
How long will it take to get into production? 1 year?
How long will it take to get into a product that is on store shelves? 6 months?
This is too long. Intel may as well have said they aren't interested. 3 years from now there are going to be how many tens of millions of devices with hardware H.264 support and no way of upgrading to VP8 support? People aren't going to toss these things in the trash just so the can buy brand new devices that give them the exact same experience.
Re:Maybe if it gets popular? (Score:5, Informative)
3 years from now? H.264 is on my computers, my blu ray player, my phone, my camera, my video camera, it's everywhere now. In order for any codec to replace H.264 it has to be technically superior, just not "free". And from what I've seen, VP8 is better than Theora, but still not H.264.
Re:Maybe if it gets popular? (Score:5, Interesting)
My point is that by the time Google and their partners could get this into widespread use, H.264 is going to be in even more widespread use than it is now.
If Google wanted to really compete, the time to do it was a few years ago. It's too late now. The only way to stop H.264 is to come out with a codec that makes H.264 look like bloated garbage. This isn't such a codec.
Anyway, that's my opinion. I would love to be proven wrong - I don't really want to have to start paying royalties in 2015.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
There is a good chance that it is gone too far already but considering the company pushing this codec and their ties to the internet and marketing muscle in general, I wouldn't be so quick to count them out yet.
Remember, google is starting to release their own channel along with the fact they own YouTube and a host of other services, all of which I am betting will be migrated over to this format all of which is supposed to be supported in the new HTML setup they are going for. Face man, they are like the ne
Re: (Score:1)
Let's say the Google overlords are good to the little people these days.. and successful or not that's certainly worth the try.
In any case when going to youtube and having VP8 served through flash, VP8 will have some market share, not matter what.
Re:Maybe if it gets popular? (Score:5, Interesting)
This only needs to get to be the current GIF vs PNG situation and it's enough. There are still GIFs on the internet everywhere. They will never go away. However, nobody needs to put new content in GIF format because PNG is available everywhere. GIF licensing fees are now taxes on stupidity and help to mean that IP supporting companies become ever less competitive.
That means that the entire television industry, which is locked into H.264 will become less competitive against the internet / Google / web / open access type companies. This is the reason why the MPEG-LA is desperately spreading FUD. Hint; if you know that there's a patent which is essential to a particular existing standard there is absolutely no reason not specify exactly which patent it is out loud. If you don't do it you risk losing money for accusations of bad faith. If these people really knew which patent it was, then they wouldn't say they had it (admit they've done that analysis) without specifying exactly where the breach was. The very fact the MPEG-LA says there are patents but won't specify which shows that there actually aren't any.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The patents on GIF have expired. It's not just as free as PNG. Plus it supports animation. Also a lot of software - notably Photoshop - tends to produce smaller GIFs than PNGs for most images because the GIF generation code is more optimized.
Re: (Score:2)
APNG (.png) supports animation in any non-IE web browser.
A properly optimized PNG file will often be half the size of a gif, and supports 24bit colour too...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
APNG (.png) supports animation in any non-IE web browser.
APNG was also voted down as a standard - MNG is the official way to do animation but no one supports it.
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_name=3.0.6.32.20070420132821.012dd8e8%40mail.comcast.net [sourceforge.net]
A properly optimized PNG file will often be half the size of a gif, and supports 24bit colour too...
Part of the problem with PNG is that a lot of applications will generate 24bit PNGs for images that would be smaller if they used a palette.
In both cases PNG's official feature set often works against
Re: (Score:2)
APNG was also voted down as a standard - MNG is the official way to do animation but no one supports it.
Mozilla used to support MNG, back before they ripped out support in favour of their new APNG format.
Re: (Score:1)
Well there are very optimized GIF encoders.
E.g. I've got a test image PNG image generated by Vista's Snipping Tool which is a screenshot with few colours. It is 25.4KB.
Serif Photoplus 6.0 has an image optimizer which is like Photoshop's but not quite as good. On the other hand Serif Photoplus is Free Software and Photoshop isn't.
Now I run my test image through the optimizer. It can save it as a PNG file at 23.2KB or a 256 colour GIF at 15.6KB. However with GIF I can reduce the bit depth further, e.g. to 16
Re: (Score:2)
Even better the tool should have a "Auto size Palette" option that automatically creates a palette just big enough to contain all the colours in the original image for both PNG or GIF.
Even GIMP has "remove unused colors" when converting an image to indexed color mode.
Re: (Score:1)
Most people would rather stick pins in their eyes than use GIMP though.
Re: (Score:2)
List of H.264 patents (Score:2)
However, nobody needs to put new content in GIF format because PNG is available everywhere.
MNG and APNG, the animated extensions to PNG, are not available elsewhere. The alternatives to animated GIF are SWF and HTML+PNG+JavaScript.
The very fact the MPEG-LA says there are patents but won't specify which shows that there actually aren't any.
There is aleady a PDF listing patents in the H.264 pool [mpegla.com]. As for the proposed WebM pool, give it time. MPEG-LA members are still reviewing their portfolios to see which patents are essential enough to go on such a list.
Re:Maybe if it gets popular? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it has to be used more by providers. Why does everything have a H.264 codec, because Youtube and everyone else uses H.246. What Google needs to do is to get providers to switch to VP8 and make their intentions clear to swtich off H.264. HW manufacturers will follow the providers.
Re: (Score:1)
I think they might just throttle it and put up a notice. They would need to let their users know that their phone is using 'outdated software' or whatever.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And chances are they won't have to. Few devices have silicon h.264 decoders, instead having a DSP and a software h.264 codec. Plenty faster than a regular software decoder, cheaper and more flexible than a fixed decoder.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My bet: the next version of Google Chrome will include the VP8 codec, and Youtube will provide VP8 encoded videos.
Since Chrome is gaining more market share every day, VP8 could become the standard de-facto for Web streaming, especially if Youtube doesn't support H264.
Google doesn't care about offline products.
Re: (Score:2)
Some say this has already happened. I use Chromium nightlies that include VP8 and use YouTube's HTML5 VP8. It's lovely.
Re: (Score:2)
3 years for *INTEL* (Score:2)
This is what it will take for INTEL to support hardware accelerated VP8.
Mainly because they'll have to create a full blown VP8-core (or more likely, try to see if they can modify the existing video core and cram in the few missing parts).
That's because their embed 3D chips aren't that brilliant and Larrabree project is heading nowhere.
Now, for other companies, it might simply be a purely software problem, leveraging the various SIMG, DSP & GPU components.
Theora has hardware implementation runing on the
Sounding good over all (Score:5, Interesting)
According to their page AMD, ARM, nVidia, MIPS, Marvell, TI, and Freescale are all onboard. That leaves pretty much just Intel and Analog Devices as the only two major chip makers for various devices that haven't cast in. If they can get widespread hardware support, it means that devices will likely have WebM acceleration by default, simply due to the chips they use. That being the case, enabling software support for it makes good sense.
I think it has a real shot at becoming the streaming media standard. H.264 is likely to remain the high quality standard for video because it is used on Blu-ray and a good deal of recording devices, but WebM could well take over streaming. While it isn't as high quality per bit, it is good enough (after all, VP6, its predecessor is used in a good deal of Flash video) and free is hard to say no to. If devices support it in hardware, then there you go.
Have to see how things shake out, but I'm optimistic. There's a large base of support for it in all the right areas. Only real thing that could sink it is a successful patent lawsuit. However I believe Google when they claim they've evaluated it before and after purchasing On2 and they are confident. I think it is likely that if VP8 infringes on any patents, it infringes only on ones that they can find prior art for, and that they may also have some patents of their own they can hit back with.
Here's hoping. Not only would a completely free format be good various uses, but its existence should force MPEG-LA to keep H.264's licensing terms reasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
and free is hard to say no to
So that's why Theora has been such a smashing success?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
VP8 doesn't suck and appears to be gaining corporate support.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
VP8 doesn't suck
Then you've apparently never used it or you actually fell for that shitty comparison from their website which was nothing but misleading marketing material.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Fools on the case and they're giving me baseline (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, VP8 sucks, and it's not surprising. Part of the reason Theora got such a bad reputation is that VP3 had some really dubious design decisions which took years to correct. VP8 looks like it's not quite as bad, but it's still got some decidedly dubious aspects (bad support for quantizer selection, slow bitstream coding method, generally poor encoder, etc).
Re: (Score:2)
Ogg is a container format, not a video codec, you dimwit!
Re: (Score:1)
If MPEG-LA wanted to be really nasty about it and keep it out of the courtroom, they could pressure the chip makers not to support WebM much in the same way Microsoft pressured OEMs: "You do that and I'll make you pay more licensing fees", or the more modern, "Thanks for not supporting a rival, here's a sweet licensing deal and more free (gratis) software!".
Yes, it's probably illegal in many jurisdictions to do that, but corporate entities have discovered that it's often more cost-effective to break the law
With how close VP8 is to h264 (Score:1, Insightful)
With how close they are to each other as a format, it shouldn't be too hard to make it decode in hardware as most of the stuff is already there. Hell, with how close they are you could probably rig up a decoder that already ran partially in hardware as is.
It is a win for VP8 but not exactly like it would be a hard thing to do or even expensive on Intels part.
To be honest, this actually looks like the logical thing to do on their part.
1) Format becomes popular that is already mostly able to run on your curre
They already support h.264... (Score:4, Informative)
Given that VP8 is really just a minor modification of h.264, and Intel already supports h.264 decoding in hardware, what exactly has to be done to support VP8? Modify the driver to reload the proper DCT constants and other minor things. The only hardware stuff I can see is if the hardware is hardwired for h.264 in which case they need to rewire it to be a little more flexible. But given they support many codecs already with the same pieces, it should be already in place (a lot of other pieces get reused decoding VC-1, for example).
Surely all the h.264 blocks could be re-used as VP8? In which case Theora's practically dead because everything supports h.264 decoding already and can probably be trivially converted to support VP8 as well.
Heck, you probably can do the same with an h.264 encoder to have it spit out a VP8 bitstream...
Don't believe the trolls (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't think there is actually a _single_ h.264 hardware component that could be directly reused for a vp8 decoder. Maybe if you designed your motion compensation engine with a lot of filter flexibility it could be reworked for vp8 without too much work... but really, in engineering "similar" is not the same as "the same". For the reuse of pre-existing parts "the same" is what counts.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For the devices using a SIMD engine and a DSP to do H.264 with instructions in firmware, it's just a firmware upgrade to support other codecs that are substantially similar. That maybe not be the approach everyone's using, but it seems a likely combination for some devices. Lots of ARM-based devices tend to use this, if I'm not mistaken. Cell phones and tablets would be a good place to not have to spend an extra dollar for licensing costs, too.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Exactly, see the VP8 technical analysis by Dark Shikari [multimedia.cx]
The very example the OP refers to (DCT) is telling:
H.264 uses an extremely simplified “DCT” which is so un-DCT-like that it often referred to as the HCT (H.264 Cosine Transform) instead. This simplified transform [...] can be implemented entirely with adds, subtracts, and right shifts by 1.
VP8 uses an extremely, needlessly accurate version[..]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well, that's all folks. (Score:5, Insightful)
So beceause Intel may add VP8 hardware acceleration that it means that H.264 (which dominates in pretty much every area of home video and VOD, etc) is done? lolwut?
Re:Well, that's all folks. (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't mean that. What it does mean is that Theora is done, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fine, let me rephrase.
Theora is done as an HTML5 video codec.
(what else matters, anyway?)
Hope that makes you feel better...
Re: (Score:2)
All they are saying is that "if it gets popular, we may support it". So... they're basically saying nothing but the obvious, given it's in their interests to support popular formats anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
What they're saying is that MPEG-LA, Apple, and Microsoft won't scare them away with patent threats just by saying VP8 is infringing on H.264. Whether that means they believe it doesn't infringe or that they're willing to pony up licensing funds isn't really clear from the summary.
Re:Well, that's all folks. (Score:5, Informative)
WTF? Intel might add hardware support for this codec and you declare victory? Intel is a bit-player in hardware video decoders. H.264 is already everywhere. Also, I don't know where you get the idea that it's patent-free. You simply can't make a modern video codec without treading on someone's patent any more, and this is no exception. Remember MS proudly announced that VC1 was patent-free, too. It's all a form of corporate trolling.
Re:Well, that's all folks. (Score:5, Interesting)
You simply can't make a modern video codec without treading on someone's patent any more, and this is no exception.
Yes, that's the MPEG's assertion. However, your comment implicitly asserts that Google is tremendously stupid. Even Google's biggest detractors can't reasonably make that claim.
Google is pushing the format pretty hard. And after all, they bought On2 in the first place. And, considering they must have a truckload of lawyers who specialize in software patents, they'd know if they had a timebomb on their hands. They sure aren't acting like it, which leads me to believe that they think they can make a very good case that it's patent free.
As for the format itself, it's certainly inferior to h264 - but I'll take slightly larger size/worse quality for patent free any day of the week.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
google is an h.264/MPEG-LA licensee so they won't be affected if it infringes on that patent set.
They will be affected if such additional usage of patented items requires the payment of further license fees that they did not anticipate.
Re:Well, that's all folks. (Score:5, Interesting)
Google gains nothing by releasing an inferior codec under the same restrictions. After all, if you need the MPEG patents, why not just use MPEG4?
I imagine they're working up to it. More specifically, they're probably fishing for a lawsuit so they can prove that it's kosher.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Content Apple MPEG-LA patent pool Profit You
Content Google MPEG-LA patent pool Profit You vs
Content Google VP8 Profit You
Everybody is trying to cut one lawyer/developer step out of the profit/content/consumer chain before they demand a drink from the credit card # typing consumer.
Re: (Score:2)
MPEG-LA does it because they know they can't guarantee that there aren't any submarine patents on the technology they license. If Google was truly confident that VP8 doesn't infringe any patents then they would be indemnifying their users.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
My TV doesn't support h264. Even fancy HD digital cable still uses mpeg2.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Besides the fact that TV and Bluray players may well be using generalized DSP cores for hardware acceleration.
Bluray players are especially likely to have programmable DSP cores, since they need to support:
Nevertheless, your bluray player probably does not have a web browser, so who cares if it has
Re: (Score:2)
Intel makes homes?
Re: (Score:2)
How many of those patents have been tested? I'll bet it's not many. I'll bet the holders do not want them tested. I'll bet there are prices that can settle these matters. We're talking about Google and Intel here; they have patent lawyers. Good ones. They have deep pockets. Pockets deep enough to settle patent disputes.
Very, very, good point. So far fear, and FUD, have kept the game going. It will be interesting to see what happens when someone actually has the balls to say "bullshit" and back it up with a legal team.
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
What the fuck mods?
How the fuck is this flamebait? A MAJOR hardware manufacturer. Probably the most relevant and biggest hardware making in history is willing to support an open standard. And one of the biggest players in the industry is the one pushing that open standard (Google). It's already supported by all relevant Free Software packages (i.e: ffmpeg), Out of the 5 major browsers, 3 already implemented it, and another (no one but MS's IE) said it'll support it if you have it installed.
That's what I cal
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's flamebait because it's a completely unwarranted conclusion. You've got it pumped up to +4 right now, somehow, but the flamebait was a better moderation idea. Seriously, how is h.264 "finished" just because someone's willing to add it to their decoder spec? Nothing in that post was insightful, informative, or interesting (objectively speaking. It was pure opinion, which may be subjectively interesting). The only thing it did was try to start a fight over what's better, h.264 or this. That's the very def
Re: (Score:1)
Bawww! I wrote a rabid post cheerleading Team Freedom and got modded down. The hive has rejected me! Now I'll have to face the terror of individuality.
Hey kiddo Microsoft, Fox News and Big Oil want cheerleaders too. And unlike Team Freedom they actually pay them. Plus they don't have any of that awkward peer moderation.
Victory, with VP8 at 0% market share? (Score:3, Informative)
What a ridiculous statement.
H.264 is massively entrenched. Which content do you think you're going to get in VP8? DirecTV already adopted H.264. Cable is stuck on MPEG-2 at the moment, but will definitely take whichever format allows them to use their limited bandwidth most efficiently (H.264). What about cable in Europe, DVB? Nope, that already went to H.264. Will pirates give up a little bandwidth to use a free CODEC? They're already pirating content, you think they care about licensing fees for CODECs? B
Re: (Score:2)
H.264 is entrenched, but it has one BIG downside: it requires a license from MPEG LA to use it on a commercial scale. That's why there is interest in VP8, especially if this new format gets hardware acceleration support from the likes of Intel, AMD/ATI and nVidia. It could mean a potential drop in the cost of Blu-ray disc mastering and production, since we no longer need to pay MPEG LA a license, meaning less expensive discs and players.
Re: (Score:2)
It could mean a potential drop in the cost of Blu-ray disc mastering and production, since we no longer need to pay MPEG LA a license, meaning less expensive discs and players.
Existing Blu-ray Disc players would not support VP8 discs, only MPEG-2, VC-1, and H.264 discs.
Re: (Score:2)
But since most Blu-ray players are flash-upgradeable, they could potentially add accelerated VP8 support in the future.
People are scared that after 2015 MPEG LA could seriously up the licensing costs for H.264, and that could increase the price of hardware and software everywhere.
Most != all (Score:2)
But since most Blu-ray players are flash-upgradeable, they could potentially add accelerated VP8 support in the future.
Most != all. I'm not convinced that even all Bonus View (BD 1.1) players support codec upgrades, which means each disc would have to have a system requirements panel so that someone doesn't unwittingly buy a VP8 disc and try to play it on a player model that cannot be upgraded to decode VP8. It's possible that a player can accept upgrades to BD-J, BD+, etc., without accepting upgrades to video codecs, partly because so much of a video codec might be implemented directly in silicon, or the DSP might be execu
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that MPEG LA has some patent rights on the VC-1 codec, too. As such, MPEG LA could after 2015 literally grind much of the video industry to a halt if they up their licensing fees for technology MPEG LA has paten rights on.
Apple did almost nothing (Score:2)
They have like 1 patent out of 200 or something.
Developing CODECs isn't "nothing".
I have no idea where you get your idea that it's only on 10% of computer systems. It's on every Mac and Windows 7 machine for starters. And that's over 10% of the market. And anyone who has VLC or Windows Media Player on other platforms.
And support for it is near ubiquitous in HD video players. Portable ones, etc. That's a big market. As I mentioned, it's in cable (and free to air) systems in Europe, it's on all DirecTV boxes
Re: (Score:1)
H.264 is also supported by Flash.
Re: (Score:2)
Most PCs and mobile devices don't support enough of h264 for it to be really interesting. The members
of the Cult of St. Steve like to make noises about how iThing this or that has built-in support for
h264 but when the rubber hits the road the iThing needs a degraded version for playback.
The audio equivalent would be the iThing only supporting mp3 up to 64kb/s.
Most TVs and STBs don't have any sort of hardware decoder for h264. A lot of the devices that do
have a watered down version of h264 support that doesn
Re: (Score:2)
This is true, but it does not guarantee a victory for Google or for open standards.
We have entered the FUDwar, the FUD launching has begun in full and it does not matter that open standards and Google are slinging truth. With the patent case it does not matter what is true necessarily but what MPEG-LA and its backers, most notably Apple and Microsoft c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, only two minutes. You must live above a Best Buy or something.
Re: (Score:1)
Your faith in your friends is your greatest weakness, young Jedi
Soon you will witness the power of this fully armed and operational patent pool.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Political correctness might be misdirected, but posting "niggers" several times in the row is still vulgar, rude and a sign of a fucking moron.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
Only when you're a niggerfaggot.
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
so yeah, the first poster was rude. what of it?
Nothing. And that's why he is sitting at -1. If he wants to make a political statement, there are better ways to do than post as AC on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
fyi, the crowning achievement of any internet troll is to type "niggers" and have some dork post a 5000 word essay (that nobody reads) in response.
congrats, you are more meaningful to some basement-dweller than the $100 hooker he lost his virginity with.