<i>The burden of dealing with patent encumbered formats. </i><p>They <i>already</i> do this by letting users install Flash -- in fact, they make it particularly easy to do so, patent-encumbered though it is. And as I've pointed out before, they use Flash to play h.264 video <i>anyway</i>. The difference with &#60;video&#62; is that Mozilla is actively forbidding users from passing that supposed burden onto the operating system vendor, who in the case of Windows and Mac OS X, have already licensed h.264. In the case of free software operating systems, users can <i>choose</i> whether they want to have support for h.264 or not, just as they have for years with any number of other patent-encumbered formats.<p>And once again, we're not merely talking about patent-encumbered formats, as Mozilla prevents users from using non-Ogg patent-free formats like Dirac and Flac.<p><i>My point is simple...</i><p>You didn't actually answer my question. You keep mentioning things and then forgetting them entirely. Please just make a coherent argument or stop replying. If you're not going to talk sense, you're wasting time for both of us.<p><i>Therefore implementing h.264...</i><p>It has been made abundantly clear that they don't have to in order to allow users to use it <i>of their own free will</i>. Just as Apple did not have to implement Theora in order to allow users to view Theora content in &#60;video&#62; if they choose to do so.<p><i>This guy explains it in much better terms...</i><p>He didn't, actually. He made a lot of emotional appeals that fly in the face of reality and then breezily dismissed every other argument in a single concluding paragraph. I know this because I already read it: <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1073718" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1073718</a>