Thanks for your great statement, that makes everything understandable. Extra royalty fees for usage of Hi10 and newer profiles? Or maybe just testing your keyboard?
Well, could have found it yourself, but here you are:
http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AV...avcweb.pdf
As you like short term statements: NO

10-bit is supported in x264 since mid 2010 (starting with limited options):
http://git.videolan.org/?p=x264.git;a=...ec0fa7acb1
So usage beginning in 2011 is very likely.
Haven't looked into it currently, but if I remember correctly, LGPL mode combined with libx264 has been a valid ffmepg build configuration for years. Well, doesn't mean, that it's correct in any legal aspect.
The MPEGLA H.264 licencing for a device doesn't depend on available profiles and the embedded decoding implementation.
All in all, I just want to stress, the my statement about blaming the companies stays valid for me. I don't see any serious problems to provide a (nearly) complete H.264 implementation for mid-range and high-end embedded TV devices build within the last 4-5 years. That's why I totally agree, that the companies probably just want to avoid the time/money considering a small group of consumers.
The companies' policy of feature implementation is fine by me. But I can't stand those statements, that blame groups/encoders for not using 8-bit H.264.
Not to mention, that most TV devices lack a lot more features, that need a proper software solution. For example libass, fontconfig, vorbis/opus/alac...