[ZeroGravitas]

Interesting theory. I'd be interested in reading the multi-page version, though possibly he'd be happier spending his time on his more constructive educational output. But maybe two distinct voices calling for royalty-free codecs with different strategies is better than one united front anyway.

I noticed that Brendan Eich (edit: sorry it was Robert O'Callahan http://lwn.net/Articles/572540/) challenged people recently in a comment (sorry can't recall exactly where) to name anyone who has done more for the cause of royalty-free codecs on the web than Mozilla.

Clearly he didn't just forget about Google (in fact I think he brought up Chrome's H.264 support in the same comment), so he obviously thinks their contribution doesn't measure up to Mozilla's. I'm not sure I agree.

Now Mozilla's done all sorts of good stuff (hiring many of the Xiph team is just the latest in a long list) but I think the big corporate moves of Google with Android, WebRTC, Hangouts, Youtube, buying VP8 etc. which might add up to literal billions in investment in royalty free codecs are probably going to have more impact overall.

Google's obviously pissed a lot of folk off along the way, but I'd say that's more a measure of their success than failure.

Obviously I'm not privy to the conversations that Mozilla and Xiph are having with various industry participants but from the outside, probably mostly due to leverage from Android, Google has basically everyone (Qualcomm, Samsung, nVidia, Intel etc.) on board with VP8/9 now with the exception of Nokia, Apple and Microsoft (who, not coincidentally, were the exact same group that killed Theora as a lowest-common-denominator fallback video in the W3C--because our cute cat videos and educational animations are so much better as gifs--as well as being the three companies most threatened by Android). I don't see failing to convince them as a PR failure, quite the opposite I'd consider convincing them some kind of miracle.

On the subject of Apple, Microsoft and Nokia, have any of those three publicly committed to using Opus? I mean Microsoft helped build it (via their Skype purchase) but as far as I'm aware there's nothing but ominous silence. Monty seems hopeful but not certain, which doesn't fill me with confidence.

It's particularly relevant as WebRTC just failed to name an MTI video codec mostly because "people might ignore that part of the standard" yet, as far as I'm aware there's no clarity that the aforementioned will even implement WebRTC itself, never mind support Opus.

They're all still happily ignoring Xiph's Flac, many years later, so there's plenty of precedent for ignoring widely used and popular free codecs long after any patent bogeyman fades from view.

[zmk]

SILK was designed to be open from the start - both standard and code sense. Even Opus was quite far alogn before Microsoft appeared in the scene. So Microsoft did not have chance to affect the process.

Fun link: http://www.microsoft-careers.com/key/OPUS-codec-jobs.html lists 2 Patent Analyst jobs :)

[ZeroGravitas]

Well, they have a chance to affect the process if they simply don't implement it in WebRTC (or simply don't bother to implement WebRTC). And even if they do that, they can decide not to implement it in HTML5 web audio or their phones and just generally not support it whenever they feel it's not strategic for them to do so.

I think they use speex in Xbox live (and WebGL in IE) so it's not impossible that they'll make use of it, but who can predict what these corporations are up to.

http://www.microsoft-careers.com/job/Redmond-PATENT-ANALYST-...

As well as the general scariness of that job listing, I enjoyed the juxtaposition of the last item in the list of requirements:

"10+ year’s work experience and/or research in at least one of the following technical areas. This experience can be education, work experience, or a combination of the two, but must be at a technologically deep level. Experience working with multimedia in the devices and services space is a plus, as is knowledge of media services exposed by cloud computing systems. Ideally, an understanding of the current state of the technology in use by all major players in the industry.

Audio and/or Video Codecs: Information theory and data compression. Strong knowledge of at least one current high definition video codec such as H.264/HEVC, VP8/9 or audio codec such as Vorbis, Opus, Siren. Deep understanding or direct experience implementing multimedia data compression and decompression algorithms.

Speech: Statistically-based trained and untrained speech recognition systems, ideally with modern conversational understanding systems. Strong technical understanding of deep neural networks or hidden Markov models and the underlying science behind them. Speech recognition engines, speech-enabled applications, or speech recognition services/APIs exposed by cloud computing systems.

Image processing: All aspects of image processing from acquisition and compression to processing and error/image correction.

Streaming media. Experience with development of the technologies underlying playlists, trick play, time shifting, media player. Conferencing systems including speaking person recognition,

A degree in computer science, computer or electrical engineering or physics or significant work experience in software or hardware development

Experience in patent analysis and/or supporting patent licensing activities is desirable but not required

Strong communication and presentation skills, with the ability to explain complex situations to diverse audiences

Demonstrated outstanding written and verbal communication

Demonstrated advanced knowledge of Excel, proficiency in PowerPoint"

I wonder if Powerpoint proficiency will be a deal-breaker.

[zmk]

This is indeed scary.

It's hard to imagine a person with all those skills and who prefers to grind patents instead of doing something productive.