MPEG-2 Patents Have Expired

I wonder if this will affect the existence of the Raspberry Pi&#x27;s binary blob ? I remember Liz Upton saying &quot;[MPEG2 licensing] is a reason we have to keep the blob, unfortunately, or we’d be sued into a smoking hole in the ground by the MPEG LA&quot; on this page: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.raspberrypi.org&#x2F;blog&#x2F;a-birthday-present-from-broadcom&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.raspberrypi.org&#x2F;blog&#x2F;a-birthday-present-from-bro...</a><p>Also does it mean that the Raspberry Fundation could provide the MPEG2 hardware decoder license key for free ? (currently: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.raspberrypi.com&#x2F;mpeg-2-license-key&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.raspberrypi.com&#x2F;mpeg-2-license-key&#x2F;</a>)

As an aside, MPEG-LA already moved on, forming other patent pools such as for CRISPR (the gene editing technology).<p>See their website: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.mpegla.com&#x2F;main&#x2F;default.aspx" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.mpegla.com&#x2F;main&#x2F;default.aspx</a>

This is a striking example of the need to shorten software patents; if we really must have them at all.

An obsolete movie format, but a large amount of stored media exists in this format so ultimately a win.<p>I would like to say something to the effect of there being just a tiny bit less rent-seeking in the world today, but I&#x27;m sure by tomorrow the seeds will be planted for millions more rent-seeking opportunities in the future.

For those wondering about MPEG-2&#x27;s applications (compared to, e.g., MPEG-1 and MPEG-4), it&#x27;s the primary standard used for DVD-Video. Blu-ray makes some use of MPEG-2, especially for the FBI warnings, but it&#x27;s not too popular for the actual features. It&#x27;s also used in ATSC and DVB broadcast video, but I&#x27;m not sure how popular it is compared to MPEG-4.

Software patents shouldn&#x27;t exist to begin with.

I think software patents are unfair because companies claim monopoly or a license fee. Patented software will be built on previous software work so they are not unique pieces of inventions that stand on their own shoulders.<p>Shortly software patents wants sole right use while building on others software work. Claiming fees for previous inventions.<p>Software should compete on skill of implementation and not legal departments. Thus patents can also be viewed as anti competitive. Whereas big companies with legal departments&#x2F; patent trolls can go after smaller competitors.

Does this mean that Electron issues with MPEG codecs are non-issues now? I mean the discussion here <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;electron&#x2F;electron&#x2F;issues&#x2F;633" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;electron&#x2F;electron&#x2F;issues&#x2F;633</a> and <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;electron&#x2F;libchromiumcontent&#x2F;issues&#x2F;174" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;electron&#x2F;libchromiumcontent&#x2F;issues&#x2F;174</a>

The page wasn&#x27;t very clear, is it Mpeg-2 Video ( H.262 )? Or All Mpeg-2 ? Because AAC is part of Mpeg-2 as well.<p>And just wondering, is it possible to extend H.262 to support 4K resolution, different size Microblock, call it something else rather then Mpeg-2 without hitting any patents infringement?

The statement: &quot;patents remain active in Philippines and Malaysia after that date&quot; worries me...

Except in Philippines and Malaysia?

I looked at the page count on the PDF and thought; 25 pages of patent references for MPEG2, that&#x27;s insane. Then I looked at the list of patents for HEVC(H.265)...

Why doesn&#x27;t the &quot;original title&quot; rule apply here?