Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple Businesses

Sorenson Countersues Apple 122

Posted by pudge from the one-good-tort-deserves-another dept.
pinqkandi writes "MacCentral is reporting that Sorenson Media is countersuing Apple over a lawsuit Apple initiated in April claiming they have exclusive rights to Sorenson's codec. Sorenson, claiming Apple's lawsuit against them has severly hurt business, is seeking judgement against Apple in compensation. Apple originally brought on their lawsuit when Sorenson teamed up with Macromedia for Flash MX. Looks like good old Steve is back to his old self :-)"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sorenson Countersues Apple More

Sorenson Countersues Apple

Comments Filter:
  • The thought that they can sue the guy whose NAME IS ON THE BLOODY CODEC!

    I can just imagine the Apple lawyers sitting around discussing this.

    Lawyer 1: Sorenson Codec...Mr Sorenson, I think we can successfully sue him.
    Lawyer 2: I'm not quite so sure, maybe we should change this press release to say we're NOT going to sue him.
    Lawyer 1: Hmm, you may be right. No matter, just right click on the word "Sue" and look up an antonym for it
    Lawyer 2: But this is a Mac
    Lawyer 1: DOH! Ok, we'll stick with the original plan then...
  • After they collect the $69-$129 upgrade fee to OS X 10.2 from all of their users (many of whom just purchased a computer with 10.1 on it).
    • When you purchase an Apple computer it comes with three coupons for a free OS upgrade. (At least mine did. Both my powerbook and my G4 tower.), So I doubt that they'll be extorting money out of that many users. They definatly won't be taking money from people who just bought macs with 10.1.
      • According to Apple's web page, the upgrade price only applies to those who bought a new mac on July 17th or later.

        That effectively makes my Mac OS 10 upgrage coupons worthless.

        Those bastards. I can't afford the $129 price tag for 10.2!
        • The upgrade price doesn't apply to you because the coupon price applies to you. It's illegal to hand out coupons for a free anything and then unilaterally declare them void. What exactly does the fine print on the coupon say?
          • "blah blah blah blah* blah blah"

            "*See individual offers for terms and conditions."

            They mention nothing about the upgrade being a free one. At least, mine don't.

            As far as I can figure, these coupons are only good for something when Apple specifically states that they're good for something.
            *shrug* Dunno, though. IANAL and all that. IANETS (I Am Not Even That Smart).

            dalamcd

  • Steve?? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by rampant mac ( 561036 )
    "Looks like good old Steve is back to his old self"

    You're mistaken... Bill is usually the one getting sued, Steve summons other to cease and desist. :)

  • Oh boo hoo hoo! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wowbagger ( 69688 ) on Friday July 19, 2002 @06:03PM (#3919465) Homepage Journal
    For years, Apple and Sorenson have played "Ask you mother" about making a Sorenson decoder available under Linux:

    Developer: Sorenson, would you please let us release a binary only, closed version of your decoder for Xanim?

    Sorenson: Well, we can't help you - Apple has an exclusive contract with us, so they will have to allow it. Go ask them.

    Developer: Apple, would you please let us release a binary only, closed version of your decoder for Xanim?

    Apple: Well, it's not ours to release, it belongs to Sorenson. Go ask them.

    Now, the two of them are squabbling amonst themselves because Sorenson had the gall to let Macromedia have the decoder.

    Boo Hoo Hoo, cry me a river....
    • Meanwhile, it is quite easy to play ASF and other Microsoft-formatted files in Linux. Yet, the opprobrium is reserved for Microsoft.
      • Well, from my experience, the problem isn't with playing MS's codecs - it's authoring with them. Free tools like VirtualDub [virtualdub.org] and even commercial tools like Premiere prevent you from editing an ASF because MS doesn't want you to (VirtualDub had that feature but removed it because of legal pressure from MS).
      • It is only "easy" to play them because the various players emulate enough of a Windows environment to allow Windows DLLs to run. This is only marginally better than no drivers at all since this only works for x86 machines.

        Microsoft is as deserving of detestation in this matter as Apple and Sorenson.
        • No. Because Microsoft doesn't threaten to sue anyone who sets up playback in Linux. While Apple/Sorenson do. Apple's willingness to bring in the lawyers is far more detestable - when have you heard of Microsoft menacing a lawsuit against mplayer, Xine, or the like?

          • Re:Oh boo hoo hoo! (Score:3, Insightful)

            by namespan ( 225296 )
            Or when have they ever claimed intellectual property in any other open (*cough* GL *cough*) standard? Or the GPL in general?

            MS and Apple are different beasts, and concerned about different things... though they both do stupid things frequently, they both have an element of control-freak culture. The difference is that Apple's is balanced with taste, innovation, and an actual desire to satisfy the consumers in their market. Microsoft's is balanced with.... um.... give me a minute here..... nothing?

          • No. Because Microsoft doesn't threaten to sue anyone who sets up playback in Linux.

            Conspiracy theory: It doesn't serve MS (yet) to sue people for playing ASF files on Linux.. They're still fighting for a killer share of the market (mostly from RealPlayer). Once they get that , they won't have any need to keep Linux user placated.... then they will sue to disable the use of those codecs.

            One stone two birds.... Nice shot.

            • Actually, it always has been, and probably always will be, in Microsoft's best interests to allow ASF players anywhere. You just have to understand their motivation properly. It is in Microsoft's best interest to get players on as many computers as possible, so they are perfectly willing to tolerate people using Linux to watch ASF videos. On the other hand, it is seriously damaging to Microsoft's best interests to let unlicensed 3rd parties create certain kinds of ASF stream editors.

              Why?

              Because from what I can tell (definitely NOT insider information, just from experience working with MS on ASF issues) Microsoft created ASF simply to sell server software. You have to have a server to stream ASF media. Driving sales of the Windows client isn't the first priority (otherwise they wouldn't have made a Mac client or a Solaris client, and they definitely would have said something about the Linux work going on). And as far as I can sense (which isn't all that far, to tell the truth) the server people are going to continue to drive the ASF format, meaning that it might even be in MS's interest to write a Linux client (ok, you're right, that is a bit crazy).

              On the other hand, MS doesn't want anybody messing with the format or making editors that go beyond the rules imposed by MS. This is because the people who pay for ASF (the people who run media servers and therefore purchase Windows Server) want to be sure their content is "properly consumed." If the content is streamed, they don't want a 3rd party program recreating the original ASF file from the stream. If the content has DRM flags, they don't want a 3rd party program turning the flags off. Microsoft inspires confidence in the format (thus improving Windows Server sales) by sending C&D letters to programmers distributing unauthorized programs dealing with ASF.
              • Then I take it that they are going to C&D sourceforge any time now, since they host a program to recreate asf files from streams [sourceforge.net].
                In fact I'm surprised this program is still around, think it's years since I first came across it.
                It is actually quite nice, I've used it to download clips that where too big for my connection, nothing removes skips and frezes like dropping the file to the local disk. Plus you get to watch it as often as you want, without spending time/money on downloading/streaming it again.

        • Re:Oh boo hoo hoo! (Score:4, Informative)

          by scrod ( 136965 ) on Friday July 19, 2002 @07:10PM (#3919870) Homepage
          Er, yeah they do.
          Today I received a polite phone call from a fellow at Microsoft who works in the Windows Media group. He informed me that Microsoft has intellectual property rights on the ASF format and told me that, although I had reverse engineered it, the implementation was still illegal since it infringed on Microsoft patents. I have asked for the specific patent numbers, since I find patenting a file format a bit strange. At his request, and much to my own sadness, I have removed support for ASF in VirtualDub 1.3d, since I cannot risk a legal confrontation. This unfortunately means that I can no longer redistribute versions of VirtualDub older than V1.3d.
          • Fair enough - Microsoft is in the IP-hoarding game, too. Still, there do seem to be plenty of ASF players in Linux land, why aren't they getting C&D letters?
          • Personally, I'd wait until he gave you the patent numbers before removing the code. No reason to give them an easy kill.
          • Unfortunately, as long as M$ holds the patent (if they do in fact hold a patent, and I suspect they do) and as long as the software is free, they've got you by the short and curlies. If yours was a for-profit operation, you'd be able to factor the cost back into the price of the software and continue to cater to the larger market.

            I applaud the open source movement, but this is one of the hits you take. So long as your product supports formats that are not controlled by M$, I'm sure you'll be successful.
          • Maybe they're also planning to fuck aviplay (which supports ASF in Linux/Unix).

    • That's not the point. Everybody here (as well as Apple) are missing the main point; Sorenson Spark and Sorenson Video are VERY different products, and not related in the slightest. As I understand it, Spark is based largely on H.263, whereas Sorenson Video 3 is very proprietary and frankly much better.

      Sorenson didn't violate their contract with Apple. Sorenson Video is still QuickTime exclusive. Sorenson Spark pro is Flash exclusive. They aren't compatible, they aren't interchangeable in any way. I don't see the problem.

      The only similarity the technologies have is the fact that they both start with the word "Sorenson". It's like saying that Adobe Postscript and Adobe Photoshop are the same thing because they both start with the word "Adobe".

      IMO, Apple doesn't have any solid ground to stand on in this lawsuit.

  • Propriety formats are Apple's enemy. Or should be. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Skyshadow ( 508 ) on Friday July 19, 2002 @06:04PM (#3919466) Homepage
    You'd think Apple would be a little more anxious to promote open file formats.

    Consinder: The only thing that makes platform relevant in modern times (other than number of games available) is the ability of users to interoperate in a networked environment -- to open word processing documents, spreadsheets, presentations, etc. Other than that, people use their computers for largely platform-independant applications (surfing for porn and emailing prison inmates -- or is that just me?).

    Given the rise of near-universal networking, you'd think that Apple would see this as their big second change. In fact, given their recent PR, it seems that at least part of the organization "gets" this. And yet, Apple continues to develop and promote decidedly unopen formats like Quicktime, which are definately not friendly to alternative platforms.

    Maybe someone needs to drive to Cupertino, take Steve to Denny's and explain the concept of karma over a couple cups of coffee and some cheese sticks. Mmm... Cheese sticks.

    • Finally! (Score:1, Offtopic)

      by Akardam ( 186995 )
      Someone else who recommends Denny's cheese sticks!

      Though, I beg to differ on one point. A chocolate shake is the only possible companion for a basket of cheese sticks.

      • Re:Finally! (Score:2, Offtopic)

        by Skyshadow ( 508 )
        A chocolate shake is the only possible companion for a basket of cheese sticks.

        Chocolate shakes are good, but nothing tops a good cup 'o Denny's java. It's good with everything, from the original Grand Slam breakfast to Denny's late-night favorites like the always-good Moons Over My Hammy.

        I consider this in-depth Dennys knowledge proof that I went to high school. Diplomas can be faked, but knowing the contents of the Southern Slam is something that must be learned through hard experience.

    • Of course you are being a troll here - QuickTime is the basis for MPEG4's file format.

      The Sorenson codec is proprietary, as is the Cinepak codec, one of the suggested Quicktime codecs for use with Xanim.

      Oddly enough, Apple's Quicktime 6, also supports some very fine standards, like the officially sanctioned MPEG4 codecs (not the bastardized pre-standards "MS-MPG4"), the MPEG 1 & 2 codecs, and MJPEG.

      Open standards are obviously different than open source, but the net effect to interoperability is the same.

      Plus, you can't take Steve to Denny's for cheese sticks - he's Vegan.
      • QuickTime is the basis for MPEG4's file format.

        Can we have some info on this? How is the MPEG4 Quicktime based ...

        Oddly enough, Apple's Quicktime 6, also supports some very fine standards

        Woah, hold no a second. QT does not support any standard. It is just ABLE to play (not sure if encode) files based on open standards. That's for the very reason that the formats are open, not because Apple is nice. They promote the LOCKED soreson as the encoding format, so as to bother everyone else that doesn't have a Mac. They don't even allow QT to play on Linux, BSD and many other OSs. They I fact try to prevent everyone else from viewing movies created on Mac machines.

        I am very sorry, but it looks more like your are the one trolling.
        • Can we have some info on this? How is the MPEG4 Quicktime based ...

          Apple - MPEG-4 [apple.com]:

          While audio and video are at the core of the MPEG-4 specification, MPEG-4 can also support 3D objects, sprites, text and other media types.

          Sound familiar? It should. You've been able to mix media with Apple's QuickTime technology for over a decade, storing each new type in a separate track. With this kind of extensibility, it's no surprise that the ISO chose the QuickTime file format as the foundation for the new MPEG-4 standard.

          Or, how about this TechWeb article from 1998 [techweb.com]?
          The QuickTime file format will be used to store digital video and audio content displayed using the MPEG-4 video standard being developed by the ISO. Six companies co-authored the QuickTime format.

          The six -- Apple, IBM, Netscape, Oracle, Silicon Graphics, and Sun Microsystems -- said in a joint statement they "look forward to collaborating with other companies and industry bodies to further refine the specification and QuickTime file format -- ensuring that MPEG-4 quickly gains market acceptance."

        • Hold on, are we calling MPEG4 (and MPEG in general) an "open" standard?

          If so, then show me a site where a technical description of the format, complete enough to write a player or encoder from, is available. AFAIK, a copy of the standard will run you $5000 or more. Open, this isn't.
          • It's open since you can buy the standard - however its not free. It's very expensive.

            A closed de-facto standard means that you can't even get the specification of it - like the MS Word .doc format.

            BTW you just found the main difference between open and free software/standard etc.

            Since anyone can write a codec they are not part of the standard and are not open. So one can write a player but however you also must pay for the codecs since they also aren't free.

        • Re:Propriety formats are Apple's enemy. Or should (Score:4, Insightful)

          by frankie ( 91710 ) on Friday July 19, 2002 @09:51PM (#3920476) Journal
          How is the MPEG4 Quicktime based

          Sheesh, someone here has been living in a cave for the past couple years, apparently with only a copy of Real Player 8 for company.
          • " The QuickTime file format [apple.com] has been used as the basis of the MPEG-4 standard, developed by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)."
          • " [10.9] The MP4 file format [telecomitalialab.com] is designed to contain the media information of an MPEG-4 presentation in a flexible, extensible format which facilitates interchange, management, editing, and presentation of the media. [...] The design is based on the QuickTime® format from Apple Computer Inc."
          But don't take my word for it -- look it up for yourself [google.com].

          They promote the LOCKED soreson as the encoding format

          And here again you are living in the past. Take a look at the Apple Quicktime site [quicktime.com] right now. You will see a whole lot of promotion of their MPEG-4 cross-compatible codec. Ever since the MPEG-4 project began, Apple has been salivating at the prospects of ditching Sorenson.

          Apple used to push in favor of Sorenson, because: (1) it was the best codec, and (2) it was exclusive to QuickTime. Neither of those factors are true any more.
          • * " The QuickTime file format has been used as the basis of the MPEG-4 standard

            Only File Format ideas where taken from QT, as far as the document you link to tells (and the File Format section is about 1% of the total file). Is that so crucial as to say it's "Quicktime Based"? Well nope.

            Apple used to push in favor of Sorenson, because: (1) it was the best codec, and (2) it was exclusive to QuickTime.

            Apparently, they still want it to be exclusive. If not, they wouldn't be suing soreson, right? Also, I must point out that QT was not the best codec (for my taste at least). So 1) is arguable and 2) is false.

            Now, I like Apple a lot. But Quicktime is not one of the things in "thanks" list (which is quite long). I like to give credit where it is, and .mov files a real problem and have always been for me.
            • Apparently, they still want it to be exclusive. If not, they wouldn't be suing soreson, right? Also, I must point out that QT was not the best codec (for my taste at least). So 1) is arguable and 2) is false.

              That would seem true if Apple hadn't chosen to use the MPEG4 codec as the new default. Why? Because it's better than Sorenson. That's right, they didn't choose the codec to be evil, they chose it because it was the best.

              Now, I like Apple a lot. But Quicktime is not one of the things in "thanks" list (which is quite long). I like to give credit where it is, and .mov files a real problem and have always been for me.

              I wonder where multimedia would be today if it weren't for Quicktime. If you look into the history of Quicktime, you'll find that it is one of the key technologies that lead to the development of modern computer multimedia.
              • ... Quicktime, you'll find that it is one of the key technologies that lead to the development of modern computer multimedia.

                I couldn't comment on that. What really changed everything (in my case) was mpeg layer3 audio and mpeg2 video.

                If they owe anything to quicktime, bless them. That doesn't change the fact that QT was/is a problem, as the .avi files. All my kudos go to whoever did, promoted and developed and pushed mpeg standards (and jpgs).
                • I think your arguments are not correct if I got it right from other pages: Quicktime is just the container for video, audio and other media formats. You can put anything in this like a mpeg movie, a Sorenson movie, a Ogg Vorbis audio file or plain text. Avi is another container which much less features (index gets corrupted when file is not complete...). So the Sorenson codec has nothing to do with the quicktime container. Ogg is producing another container to have an alternative to Quicktime.
                  Please correct me if I'm wrong.
                  • You are correct! And what I mean is that the crucial difference are the codecs not the containers.

                    If the container is not open it causes problems for everyone that doesn't have access to the propietary format. It really becomes a problem (.avi, .asf, maybe .mov).

                    Regarding Apple, I'd be glad is mpeg4 is the default encoding option and the .mov file format is open. If not, then it will only cause non mac users headaches.
    • And yet, Apple continues to develop and promote decidedly unopen formats like Quicktime, which are definately not friendly to alternative platforms.

      And unfortunately those platforms are not very friendly back. I'm beginning to think QuickTime is Apples own worse enemy here - given how long they (or Sorensen) have been jerking open source video makers around, I wasn't surprised to read that an old version of Sorenson had been cracked. How long can it be until the latest versions are too? And what will that mean for the lawsuits?

      I, by the way, don't know what to think. Surely Sorenson and Apple have rights to their own creations, but on the other Natalie Portman was available only in their proprietary format. That is like a big neon sign to the geek community saying "Come on, crack me!".

      If I was going to create a closed codec, I'd make damn sure there were players for pretty much every platform out there. I'd make high quality players for Windows, Linux and maybe the Mac, and then a library for everybody else so people can write their own players if they need to. Otherwise, the moment good content gets encoded using it, by by secrects.

      • Just the facts, man (Score:4, Informative)

        by marxmarv ( 30295 ) on Friday July 19, 2002 @07:36PM (#3920000) Homepage
        I wasn't surprised to read that an old version of Sorenson had been cracked. How long can it be until the latest versions are too?
        You didn't read the thread well enough. Someone did in fact crack SVQ3 but refused to release it with their own name on it, and several folks advised them to release it anonymously, ala the RC4-compatible arcfour module. (Oh, that was a fun Usenet thread)
        And what will that mean for the lawsuits?
        The most curious thing about that whole thread was a marketing manager for Sorenson posting a note that they don't mind the use of their file formats if it's done in an approved fashion or some such rot, and recommended holding off for the next 30-60 days pending certain announcements. I think it was moderated up to 2, so I had to have been really bored to find it.
        If I was going to create a closed codec, I'd make damn sure there were players for pretty much every platform out there. I'd make high quality players for Windows, Linux and maybe the Mac, and then a library for everybody else so people can write their own players if they need to.
        Yeah, but you're a /. weenie and probably wouldn't create a binary-only codec anyway. Besides SVQ1 wasn't much more than H.323 with a slightly tricky codebook and some obligatory scrambling in an attempt to keep people out.
        Otherwise, the moment good content gets encoded using it, by by secrects.
        It took something like two years (+/- 50%) for SVQ1 to be cracked, and slightly less time for SVQ3. The QDomain music codec remains imprisoned, and without that no one's going to watch QT trailers on Linux.

        -jhp

    • There's a good chance that Steve may accept your offer for coffe, but he'll pass on the cheese sticks...

      He's a vegan.
    • Haven't you noticed how hard Apple's been pushing MPEG 4 since they released Quicktime 6? They even streamed the Macworld keynote im MPEG 4 the other day.

      What in the world is "unopen" about Quicktime, since the metafile format is fully published [apple.com] and the codecs they're pushing [apple.com] most loudly are an ISO standard [telecomitalialab.com]?

    • Actually, at the Macworld conference this week, Steve Jobs stressed in his keynote that Apple was embracing open standards. Quicktime 6, which he officially announced this week, uses MPEG-4. He repeatedly proclaimed that it is completely open.

      Apparently Steve likes cheese sticks too.
    • Apple continues to develop and promote decidedly unopen formats like Quicktime, which are definately not friendly to alternative platforms.

      When will people learn the difference between a file format and a codec? The QuickTime API and file format are open and well documented [apple.com]. You want to write a player for QuickTime files? Go ahead: Apple won't stop you. Want to reverse-engineer and implement the API? Good luck. But QuickTime is a container format: you can plug whatever codecs you want into it. The Sorenson 3 codec, which, due to it being pretty fucking good, is the most popular for QuickTime video, is only available for Mac and Windows. Hence the problem.

      This all becomes irrelevant with QuickTime 6 though, as it's expected content providers will move to using the superior and open AVC codec. Interoperability at last.

  • I know who will win (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Infonaut ( 96956 ) <infonaut@gmail.com> on Friday July 19, 2002 @06:07PM (#3919476) Homepage Journal
    the lawyers :-)

  • unresearched (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Snuffub ( 173401 ) on Friday July 19, 2002 @06:07PM (#3919482) Homepage
    "Looks like good old Steve is back to his old self :-)"

    exactly what thats supposed to mean is beyond me. There are good reasons to sue people you know. one of them being if your company signs an exclusive deal with another company for a product then that company turns around and sells the product to a competitor.

    oh wait! thats what happened in this case.
    • Ahhm,

      If you do some research, you'll find that the sorenson codec in flash based products (Flash MX etc..) is very different from the version that is bundled with Quicktime..
  • But wasn't one of the points of Apple's lawsuit to prevent Sorenson from making money that Apple claims Sorenson weren't entitled to?

  • Mmmm, sounds delicious.... (Score:3, Funny)

    by L. VeGas ( 580015 ) on Friday July 19, 2002 @06:08PM (#3919487) Homepage Journal
    Applesue Sorenson
  • The central issue seems to be: is the Spark codec a "new" codec, which would not be covered by the exclusive agreement, or a simple renaming of the existing codec to get around the exclusive license?

    • Re:What constitutes a *new* version of the codec? (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Ironically, Apple itself has a history of renaming an existing product to get out of a licensing agreement. That is exactly what Steve Jobs did to the Mac clone makers when what was essentially the next rev of Mac OS 7 (it sure wasn't Copland) became "Mac OS 8" and Steve successfully claimed all the existing agreements did not cover the "new" OS.
      • Copeland was a lost cause and wouldn't ever be a worthwhile cause regardless of the amount of money Apple threw at it.

        I think it's more accurate to say that OS 8 was called OS 8 more to entice consumers to buy the "new OS" than it was an attempt to end around licensing. Honestly, if Apple hadn't ended cloning, they probably would have faced investor lawsuits. They were bleeding so much red ink that, if cloning continued, there wouldn't have been anything to clone in another year or so.

        As well, Apple actually wound up having to BUY some of the cloners (or, at least, their remaining assets) to get out of licensing. Specifically Power Computing; the other cloners weren't doing enough cloning to really care. UMAX and Motorola both had significant other business segments. Power Computing did not....

        Apple's licensing the OS was good for consumers, but it wound up being very bad for virtually all of the companies involved. Power Computing was the only serious player and they operated at such razor thin margins that they didn't stand much of a chance. They were a major employer here in the Austin area and their problems were well known locally long before cloning ended.
      • Your example is, well, wrong. Apple killed the clone market by buying their biggest contender outright (Power Computing) and by letting the ROM licences expire without renewal. That, plus a chilly wind, forced all other out. As a Mac owner who lived through the bump up from 7.6. to 8, I found the changes worth the new integer.

        The Sorenson dust-up isn't about Apple wanting to shut out others as much as Apple's believing that Sorenson was trying to cut them out of the loop. Having the QuickTime logo on the packaging is what counts.
  • Sorenson's couter sue isn't going to bring their (likely) financial woes to a miracle-like end. Counter sueing on the terms of 'hurting a business from a previous sue' doesn't usually yield any significant paybacks. Sorenson would have better used its time and money developing new codecs - possibly only for Macromedia.
  • Looks like good old Steve is back to his old self :-)

    Wow, its great to see Steve suing again. I was wondering what happened to him. You know? I can still remember the time he sued me.

    Yep, those were the good o'l days.
  • Sorenson announced the Nosneros codec for Macromedia products.

    After all, it worked for Microsoft nimda's...errrr...admins, I meant *admins*.

    Oops.
  • Lawyer: Steve you can not sue GOD!
    Steve: yes we can Yes we can yes we can!
    Lawyer: Why?
    Steve: Why NOT?!

    Gun shot heard as lawyer shots himself..

    Gee I guess there is a use for Steve P Jobs after all! :)
  • The original suite(sp?) was because Apple was terrified that FlashMX producers would use it it to make video using the Sorenson spark codec. The fear is justified because just about everybody has the Flash plug-in and far fewer have the QuickTime plug-In.

    My opinion is that Apple is sometimes just plain dumb. If they had just bothered to include the Spark codec in the QuickTime6 engine then everything would have been fine: Video makers and web developers will not go to the extra lengths of having to embed the video in a Flash movie (Time is money!) gladly and would have just made Quicktime movies as per usual. However, it seems Apple didn't think about picking up the phone and calling a few web agencies to ask about the workflow there.

    Sometimes they deserve a little slap around the face to wake them up and point them to the world again.

    • Re:Video in Flash (Score:3, Informative)

      by PCM2 ( 4486 )
      The original suite(sp?) was because Apple was terrified that FlashMX producers would use it it to make video using the Sorenson spark codec. The fear is justified because just about everybody has the Flash plug-in and far fewer have the QuickTime plug-In.
      Not really. The way Macromedia people have described it to me, the Spark codec really works best for things like talking heads, webcams and the like. Nobody expects anyone to use Flash to stream first-run feature films. Another big benefit of the Spark codec for Macromedia is that it's TINY ... something like 100K. Keeping the size of the Flash plug-in small is one of their top priorities.
      My opinion is that Apple is sometimes just plain dumb. If they had just bothered to include the Spark codec in the QuickTime6 engine then everything would have been fine: Video makers and web developers will not go to the extra lengths of having to embed the video in a Flash movie (Time is money!)
      Again, not quite accurate. Flash has much greater market penetration than QuickTime. And it's not as easy to build applications for streaming video with QuickTime as with Flash...
      • Why would it be easier to build streaming video applications in Flash? I'm sorry but I don't understand this really. The application that people use to watch the streaming video, as I see it, is the media player itself i.e. QuickTime or WMP or RealOne. In Flash, making a streaming video application involves embedding the video in a Flash Movie and then setting up action scripted controls for it (I'm not an expert, and I suppose it's not really that difficult, but time consuming in any case). In QT etc, one would make the movie in some video application and the finished product would already be ready to be streamed (Cleaner6 etc) without having to do anything extra such as embedding.
  • Apple's new golden codec is MPEG-4. True, Sorenson is going to release MPEG-4 encoders soon, all the effort that went into sorenson 3 looks to be wasted. How do you make money off of a codec after apple basically abandons it? Re-tool slightly, and sell it to a competitor that would love to get their hands on a sorenson codec. I can see why they are both pissed. Apple pushes a competitor (MPEG-4) and Sorenson makes up for this by selling their codec to a competitor (Macromedia). In my opinion, Apple is the jerk in this situation. They build up this huge relationship over the years, then they drop Sorenson for MPEG-4 in a second.
  • Apple: 1
    Sorenson: 1
    Us: 0

    doesn't that mean Microsoft: 2?

    IMHO: it makes no sense for these two companies to be battle this out [and waste (their|our) money] when there are bigger (fish|borgs) to fry.

  • Why is this news? (Score:3)

    by werdna ( 39029 ) on Friday July 19, 2002 @09:42PM (#3920445) Journal
    Apple filed its complaint months ago, suing Sorenson fore breaching an agreement to grant it an exclusive license. Sorenson, now obliged to file its answer after losing preliminary motions, files an Answer with Counterclaims, apparently alleging that the suit has caused them difficulty -- which sounds like an almost certain loser.

    What would have been news in a case of this kind would be if Sorenson filed an answer WITHOUT filing a counterclaim.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz

Close