Open != free. H.264 is an open standard, in that the specification is open, and you can implement your own encoder/decoder as you wish. H.264 is not a free standard is due to the fact that you cannot implement anything useful without using some patented technologies.
WebM is free. Good luck implementing your own encoder/decoder.
No, the companies that designed H.264 aren't really trolls. They actually do R&D and sell real products; patent royalties are relatively minor sources of revenue.
That doesn't matter though, even if they aren't today they easily could be tomorrow, whether through a change in their management, being purchased by another, etc.
By many definitions of "open standard" H.264 isn't one, since many groups tried to brand that term in echo of "open source" to mean royalty-free (and therefore open source compatible). That definition seemed to generally be catching on until this web codec spat flared up with both sides wanting the cachet of being "open standards" rather than debating the actual policy implications of being royalty-bearing.
And factually there's several independent WebM implementations now, some would argue that it's easier to be compatible with an open source codebase than a spec, though having (at least) two independant codebases developed before finalizing is better for finding spec bugs.
Comments
Open != free. H.264 is an open standard, in that the specification is open, and you can implement your own encoder/decoder as you wish. H.264 is not a free standard is due to the fact that you cannot implement anything useful without using some patented technologies.
WebM is free. Good luck implementing your own encoder/decoder.
People tend to define open however it benefits them. It's not really worth feeding the trolls.
Trolls - patent trolls - are sort of the central concern here, aren't they?
No, the companies that designed H.264 aren't really trolls. They actually do R&D and sell real products; patent royalties are relatively minor sources of revenue.
The CEO of MPEG LA is also the CEO of a patent troll company called MobileMedia.
MPEG LA had no hand in designing h.264, it's solely a patent pool manager.
That doesn't matter though, even if they aren't today they easily could be tomorrow, whether through a change in their management, being purchased by another, etc.
By many definitions of "open standard" H.264 isn't one, since many groups tried to brand that term in echo of "open source" to mean royalty-free (and therefore open source compatible). That definition seemed to generally be catching on until this web codec spat flared up with both sides wanting the cachet of being "open standards" rather than debating the actual policy implications of being royalty-bearing.
And factually there's several independent WebM implementations now, some would argue that it's easier to be compatible with an open source codebase than a spec, though having (at least) two independant codebases developed before finalizing is better for finding spec bugs.