Talk:DivX, Inc.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Licensing
J. M. (Talk/contribs)has suggested in a revision summary that DivX, Inc. does not really license anything to manufacturers of consumer electronic devices. Instead it just certifes products. I would like to open this issue up for debate. I would note that Div, Inc. uses the term "license" frequently in its financial reports and press releases. For example, the company's most recent 10-Q includes the statement, "We license our technologies to manufacturers of integrated circuits designed for consumer hardware products, as well as consumer hardware device manufacturers who have licensed our technologies for incorporation in products such as DVD players, personal media players, portable media players, digital still cameras and mobile handsets." Additionally, the company's recent press release regarding the deal with Qualcomm includes the statement, "DivX, Inc. today announced a licensing agreement allowing QUALCOMM to include DivX(R) technology in a range of QUALCOMM video-enabled chipsets." So, I ask the question, does DivX, Inc. license any kind of intellectual property, e.g., patents on inventions or copyrights on software, to manufacturers of consumer electronic devices? Do these deals involve anything beyond certification of products? RandomWalker 15:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- I did not say "DivX, Inc. does not license anything to manufacturers". I am not against the word "licensing" per se, the exact wording is what I was concerned about – it said DivX "licenses its codec for portable DivX players" which I found highly suspect, as I could not find any proof anywhere, including the DivX company website (plus most people don't understand what a codec is, they think that when a portable player can play DivX-encoded video, or even if the device is DivX-certified, it means there's the DivX codec inside). If DivX, Inc. licenses its software products (and it does, that's what the DivX software licensing is about), then the article can say DivX licenses its software products. If DivX licences its intellectual property, i.e. patents or copyrights, then the article can say so. But preferably in a way that's not vague and misleading (and the DivX, Inc. press releases are extremely vague, they hardly ever say anything particular). And with links to sources. —J. M. 23:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I am not an expert on the technology. My assumption was that if a DVD player, for example, can play a DivX-encoded video, then it must have the codec in it. Wouldn't the DVD player have to decompress the video before playing it, and therefore use the "dec" part of the "codec." Even with an integrated circuit, like in the Qualcomm deal, wouldn't the IC have a memory that could store the codec? My assumption also was that the software licensing component was just when DivX grants a license to a company like Roxio so that Roxio can include the ability to create DivX-encoded video in its Easy Media Creator software. Am I wrong?RandomWalker 02:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- The DivX codec is an MPEG-4 ASP codec. Codec is a piece of software or hardware that encodes/decodes data to/from some format. This means that the DivX codec is a software product that encodes and decodes video in the MPEG-4 ASP format. The MPEG-4 specification is an ISO standard and it's publicly available (for a fee). The DivX codec does not use their own format, the DivX company did not invent it. They implement the MPEG-4 ASP specification (just like the authors of other MPEG-4 ASP codecs like Xvid or FFmpeg MPEG-4, that is, these codecs are mostly compatible, for example, you can play FFmpeg-encoded video with DivX and vice-versa). What various hardware manufacturers do is they read the MPEG-4 specification and then implement it in hardware. Which means that it can decode MPEG-4 video encoded with various MPEG-4 codecs, including DivX, Xvid etc. Now, the DivX company created their own "DivX profiles" for hardware devices, which is a set of restrictions within the broader MPEG-4 specification. This does not mean that video encoded with the DivX codec is not MPEG-4 video, it just uses a limited set of features (there can be bitrate restrictions etc.). The DivX-certified products are then guaranteed to play video that meets these conditions, and they may not necessarily play video that uses unsupported MPEG-4 ASP features (like Qpel) which would be more difficult/expensive to implement in hardware. So that's the DivX certification – it does not mean the products include the DivX decoder. Now, it may be possible, like you said, that some hardware products really include the DivX codec in some way (stored in the memory or whatever), and if it's true, by all means add it to the article. But please be careful to cite the source that says so. Statements like "DivX, Inc. licensed its technology to company XY" are not very clear...—J. M. 03:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I am not an expert on the technology. My assumption was that if a DVD player, for example, can play a DivX-encoded video, then it must have the codec in it. Wouldn't the DVD player have to decompress the video before playing it, and therefore use the "dec" part of the "codec." Even with an integrated circuit, like in the Qualcomm deal, wouldn't the IC have a memory that could store the codec? My assumption also was that the software licensing component was just when DivX grants a license to a company like Roxio so that Roxio can include the ability to create DivX-encoded video in its Easy Media Creator software. Am I wrong?RandomWalker 02:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Divx-black-blue.svg
Image:Divx-black-blue.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 06:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- This concern has been taken care of. A specific rationale for fair use has been added on the page for the image. Certainly, a one-time use of a company's logo on Wikipedia page about the company qualifies as Fair Use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomWalker (talk • contribs) 22:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
