Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 25th Mar 2013 21:09 UTC
Legal Late last week, Nokia dropped what many consider to be a bomb on the WebM project: a list of patents that VP8 supposedly infringes in the form of an IETF IPR declaration. The list has made the rounds around the web, often reported as proof that VP8 infringes upon Nokia's patents. All this stuff rang a bell. Haven't we been here before? Yup, we have, with another open source codec called Opus. Qualcomm and Huawei made the same claims as Nokia did, but they turned out to be complete bogus. As it turns out, this is standard practice in the dirty business of the patent licensing industry.
Order by: Score:
Nokia's patents
by bowkota on Mon 25th Mar 2013 22:31 UTC
bowkota
Member since:
2011-10-12

Contrary to the other companies named in your article, Nokia win's most of it's patent battles, i.e. they know when they're right.

I'm not gonna bother with your wall of text, big rant/propaganda as usual and even when you get refuted on the subject, you refuse to answer.

Also I don't see how Nokia's statement is relevant to the fact that Mueller is an advisor to Oracle/MS (something he publicly discloses).

Reply Score: 2

v RE: Nokia's patents
by lucas_maximus on Mon 25th Mar 2013 22:37 UTC in reply to "Nokia's patents"
v RE[2]: Nokia's patents
by bowkota on Mon 25th Mar 2013 22:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Nokia's patents"
RE[3]: Nokia's patents
by lucas_maximus on Mon 25th Mar 2013 22:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Nokia's patents"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I was more talking about the behaviour where he starts arguing and once he realises he is wrong is never replies.

http://www.osnews.com/permalink?555238

I don't have problems with opinion pieces and sometimes I get useful links from this site. But I really get a bit bored of the big conspiracy articles, because the world is really too complicated and companies themselves for this to occur.

Edited 2013-03-25 22:59 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Nokia's patents
by renox on Tue 26th Mar 2013 09:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Nokia's patents"
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

I was more talking about the behaviour where he starts arguing and once he realises he is wrong is never replies.

That's funny, I didn't see you or bowkota replying to Valhalla post (http://www.osnews.com/thread?556636) which showed that both of you are wrong..

Reply Score: 6

RE[5]: Nokia's patents
by lucas_maximus on Tue 26th Mar 2013 12:30 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Nokia's patents"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Different Story :|

Edited 2013-03-26 12:31 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Nokia's patents
by lucas_maximus on Tue 26th Mar 2013 13:20 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Nokia's patents"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I have now replied.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Nokia's patents
by Radio on Tue 26th Mar 2013 15:01 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Nokia's patents"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

Nokia is right... If you rewrite what they said.

Of course it wasn't a "cock-up" when their lawyers wrote explicitely "proprietary technology such as Ogg": it was FUD, a claim that Ogg was patent-encumbered. They claimed it, and it was on purpose.

I do not see how you can use the rest of Nokia's argument to change the meaning: all I see is

-"we made our egoistical solution by choosing a proprietary solution in which we have an interest as we have invested in it and can collect royalties from it, so in our interest, don't choose another option",

-"disregard that we failed in the past to make it royalty-free to make it acceptable to everybody else but us, next time it will work",

-""free" is a lie, look, we put weasel quotes around it, also we assert that Ogg is proprietary and it is so obvious we do not feel the need to develop here"...

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Nokia's patents
by galvanash on Tue 26th Mar 2013 15:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Nokia's patents"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but he shouldn't be judging people like Mueller when he (along with Groklaw, yes the site that is consistently bias towards Google, among other things, http://linux-blog.org/Disagreements-+-Groklaw-Deletion/) is at the other end of the spectrum.


False equivalency...

Being biased is not at all the same thing as being a paid mouthpiece... The issue isn't Mueller being biased, the issue is that he is paid to be biased. I know of no evidence that Thom or Pamela are being paid for their opinions...

Reply Score: 8

RE: Nokia's patents
by Valhalla on Tue 26th Mar 2013 08:16 UTC in reply to "Nokia's patents"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

Contrary to the other companies named in your article, Nokia win's most of it's patent battles, i.e. they know when they're right.


Really? Like when they claimed Ogg was proprietary (same lie as they are making here concering vp8):

http://boingboing.net/2007/12/09/nokia-to-w3c-ogg-is.html

Also I don't see how Nokia's statement is relevant to the fact that Mueller is an advisor to Oracle/MS (something he publicly discloses).

He 'came out' quite late which was likely due to him being about to be exposed.

Before that he pretended to be an independant observer of software patents, something few if anyone believed as his reporting was so incredibly anti-Google slanted.

Reply Score: 12

RE[2]: Nokia's patents
by lucas_maximus on Tue 26th Mar 2013 12:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Nokia's patents"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Really? Like when they claimed Ogg was proprietary (same lie as they are making here concering vp8):

http://boingboing.net/2007/12/09/nokia-to-w3c-ogg-is.html


Actually while nokia said that it is massively over-quoted considering the rest of the PDF link

http://www.w3.org/2007/08/video/positions/Nokia.pdf

Considering our requirements, we believe the widespread use of technically competitive, but not necessarily “free” open standards, such as H.264 for video and AAC for audio, would serve the community best. This would be fully aligned with the business model dominant in the digital video ecosystem.

As a major device manufacturer, we obviously prefer cheaper solutions. Therefore, Nokia has, in the past, supported initiatives in committees such as MPEG towards royalty-free standards (which unfortunately were not fully successful). We are actively considering making more such attempts, and W3C’s considerable evangelization power could be directed towards a similar use. Options for W3C include enhanced liaison activity towards bodies such as MPEG and the ITU-T in order to launch projects closer to W3C’s view on IPR, suggesting tighter company- internal coordination in those companies which contribute to both “ecosystems”, and so on.

Anything beyond that, including a W3C-lead standardization of a “free” codec, or the active endorsement of proprietary technology such as Ogg, …, by W3C, is, in our opinion, not helpful for the co-existence of the two ecosystems (web and video), and therefore not our choice.


Firstly, the proprietary bit isn't really relevant to patents what-so-ever. So I don't know why you are bringing it up.

I also think it is actually a cock-up ... you can replace proprietary with "existing" , though I would agree with you I am reaching a bit with that.

However when you read it in context with the full block of text you can see where they are going with their argument. Also why would they bother trying to fool a technical standards body, when it can be looked up on wikipedia?

Also Ogg isn't a codec it is a container format ... so what this has to do with a set of patents on VP8 is a codec?

Edited 2013-03-26 12:55 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Nokia's patents
by Thaylin on Tue 26th Mar 2013 14:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Nokia's patents"
Thaylin Member since:
2013-03-26

Why would any of the past companies try to fool the standards body? Also you cant lookup patents on wikipedia typically.

Reply Score: 1

v Dude, WTF? Really?
by jackeebleu on Mon 25th Mar 2013 22:37 UTC
RE: Dude, WTF? Really?
by dvhh on Tue 26th Mar 2013 10:43 UTC in reply to "Dude, WTF? Really?"
dvhh Member since:
2006-03-20

So we should probably wait for the gloating of MPEG-LA about it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Dude, WTF? Really?
by lucas_maximus on Tue 26th Mar 2013 12:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Dude, WTF? Really?"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Called a business deal. They made an announcement, Google blatently gave-em a bundle of cash.

Cash-money is more important than gloating.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Dude, WTF? Really?
by jackeebleu on Tue 26th Mar 2013 13:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Dude, WTF? Really?"
jackeebleu Member since:
2006-01-26

So we should probably wait for the gloating of MPEG-LA about it.



Whats to gloat? They infringed, they paid. but don't act like it didn't happen, don't act like, "Oh, we've been here behavior". Its more predatory behavior from the same fucks that brought us , don't be evil, and I'll be damned if that slogan shouldn't be sitting there right alongside "fair and balanced"

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Dude, WTF? Really?
by Thaylin on Tue 26th Mar 2013 14:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Dude, WTF? Really?"
Thaylin Member since:
2013-03-26

Prof they infringed? You know that just because someone settled does no mean they infringed. It could mean the cost of litigation was much more that the settlement. That is the largest problem with patent fights in my opinion. The loser should shoulder the entire expense.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Dude, WTF? Really?
by Vanders on Tue 26th Mar 2013 20:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Dude, WTF? Really?"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

They infringed, they paid.

No one has said that Google were infringing. Not even the MPEG-LA. You or I have no idea if VP8 really did infringe on those handful of patents the MPEG-LA had pooled.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Dude, WTF? Really?
by lucas_maximus on Tue 26th Mar 2013 20:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Dude, WTF? Really?"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Google would not hand over cash money otherwise would they?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Dude, WTF? Really?
by Vanders on Tue 26th Mar 2013 21:16 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Dude, WTF? Really?"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

Google would not hand over cash money otherwise would they?

If their options were 1) Hand over the cash and the problem goes away 2) Spend the same plus some on a long, drawn out court case and subsequent appeals, why not chose 1?

Either way, there are only two entities who know whether Google were infringing: Google and the MPEG-LA. Google have continued to say that they didn't infringe and the MPEG-LA are staying silent on the matter.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Dude, WTF? Really?
by lucas_maximus on Tue 26th Mar 2013 21:19 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Dude, WTF? Really?"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Well we will never know then.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Dude, WTF? Really?
by Radio on Wed 27th Mar 2013 07:20 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Dude, WTF? Really?"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

Google have continued to say that they didn't infringe and the MPEG-LA are staying silent on the matter
Well we will never know then.

I rest my case.

Reply Score: 1

v Here we go again
by gedmurphy on Mon 25th Mar 2013 22:52 UTC
v RE: Here we go again
by bowkota on Mon 25th Mar 2013 22:56 UTC in reply to "Here we go again"
RE[2]: Here we go again
by Rehdon on Tue 26th Mar 2013 11:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Here we go again"
Rehdon Member since:
2005-07-06

Don't go judging on Thomklaw, you'll get voted down.


The problem is, you're just trolling.

You're trolling because you pretend that all is well and good in patent law land, that poor, innocent Nokia is just asserting rights trampled by big, bad Google. As if it weren't well known by now that patents are indeed more a way of to stifle innovation and attack competitors than a way to protect your own innovation; that this specific behavior has already happened in exactly the same context, as remarked by Thom; and finally that poor, mismanaged Nokia might have other goals in mind, like trying to appear desirable in an acquisition because of their "intellectual property". Note how I left aside any "conspiracy theory".

You're trolling because you pretend not to know that F. Mueller is a well known paid shill, a pawn in a war against Google, and that he's been proven wrong many many times (not really that difficult a task when you side 100% with one of the parties, his anti-Google bias is so clear that I often wonder at the press picking up his statements).

You're trolling because you imply that Groklaw is, viceversa, a pawn in Google's service, while if there's a bias that's towards open standards and open source software; sure some of PJ's conclusions or arguments are not always convincing, but most of her work is based on (crowd-sourced) FACTS, if you have a bone to pick with her start showing where she's wrong with facts, ok?

So if you don't like being voted down, here's a simple solution: stop trolling.

Rehdon

Reply Score: 11

RE[3]: Here we go again
by lucas_maximus on Tue 26th Mar 2013 13:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Here we go again"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Unfortunately Trolling on here also includes having a different opinion.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Here we go again
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 26th Mar 2013 13:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Here we go again"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Unfortunately Trolling on here also includes having a different opinion.


Having a different opinion is fine. People have different opinions here all the time.

What's blatantly obvious to anyone reading this particular thread is that the first few comments posted offered absolutely ZERO insight, ZERO arguments as to why the article was supposedly wrong or flawed, something that can easily be classified as trolling - and people picked up on that, and voted accordingly.

You at least properly partake in the debate, with arguments. The downvoted commenters did not.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Here we go again
by 1c3d0g on Tue 26th Mar 2013 16:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Here we go again"
1c3d0g Member since:
2005-07-06

Damn right, Thom! That's how it is. You either make your point with clear, concise and supported statements, or you keep your filthy tongue behind your teeth.

lucas_maximus: perhaps this website is just not for you. But wait, I have some good news! I've found another one that may serve you better: http://turnofftheinternet.com/

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Here we go again
by lucas_maximus on Tue 26th Mar 2013 23:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Here we go again"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Well last time you basically said I was almost as bad as some troll off of some Apple evangelical blog. Make your mind up.

Also those comments were giving feedback to you, which you obviously didn't want to take on board.

Edited 2013-03-26 23:52 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Here we go again
by HappyGod on Thu 28th Mar 2013 05:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Here we go again"
HappyGod Member since:
2005-10-19

Unfortunately Trolling on here also includes having a different opinion.


What are you doing on this site? You apparently don't like the topics, the articles, the way they're written, Thom, or the responses to your comments.

Sounds like you need to find another blog.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Here we go again
by Valhalla on Tue 26th Mar 2013 08:22 UTC in reply to "Here we go again"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

Aren't you one of the ReactOS devs? Funny having someone re-implementing an existant OS from a patent-wielding company like Microsoft being so pro-software patent as you are.

It seems likely that ReactOS potentially infringes on Microsoft patents, at the very least FAT32 which Microsoft has threatened with, or does ReactOS not implement it?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Here we go again
by gedmurphy on Tue 26th Mar 2013 09:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Here we go again"
gedmurphy Member since:
2005-12-23

I'm sure ReactOS tramples on all sorts of patents.
However ReactOS is a research project, it's not being sold and it's certainly not being used to compete with any patent holders.

I may not agree with some of the more crazy software patents issued by the USPO, but I would certainly try to respect them. Google knowingly infringes on patents, releases it as free software and then tries to control the internet with its stolen art.

Edited 2013-03-26 09:25 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Here we go again
by Valhalla on Tue 26th Mar 2013 09:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Here we go again"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

and it's certainly not being used to compete with any patent holders.

Only because it is as of yet (and sadly likely always will be) too incomplete to pose as a viable alternative to Microsoft's own Windows. That is hardly through intent though, but rather due to lack of developers and resources. Or are you deliberately making sure it's not 'too compatible'?

Google knowingly infringes on patents

What patents would these be? I'd say Google would be crazy to knowingly infringe on patents given how much of a target they are.

Not going to court over patent claims is not the same as actually being guilty over patent infringement. As we've seen over and over again, patents are promiscuously granted by USPTO and their actual worth is up to a court to decide.

Court cases are long, expensive and also they seem sometimes to be hard to predict (unless they're in east Texas). So it's often a last resort as it's still a risk even if you are certain you are not infringing.

releases it as free software and then tries to control the internet with its stolen art.

How would they 'control the internet' with the royalty free vp8 (I'm assuming that is what you refer to with 'stolen art') ?

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Here we go again
by Vanders on Tue 26th Mar 2013 10:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Here we go again"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

How would they 'control the internet' with the royalty free vp8 (I'm assuming that is what you refer to with 'stolen art') ?

Quite. I can't help fell that I'm in backwards world, where open source, royalty free code is "proprietary", trying to give it away is "control" and deliberately throwing a spanner in the works of standardisation is "collaboration".

Reply Score: 6

RE[5]: Here we go again
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 26th Mar 2013 10:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Here we go again"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

It's Google hate.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Here we go again
by lucas_maximus on Tue 26th Mar 2013 13:40 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Here we go again"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

No it isn't.

They can enforce whatever is the dominate codec through android and chrome, lets not forget they own YouTube and that is the largest video site in the world and the second largest search engine (if you consider it to be, which some may not) after Google itself.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Here we go again
by Vanders on Tue 26th Mar 2013 13:52 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Here we go again"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

They can enforce whatever is the dominate codec through android and chrome, lets not forget they own YouTube and that is the largest video site in the world ...

Yet they haven't done that. They could, but they haven't. In fact they've done quite the opposite, by working with standardisation bodies to get VP8 & WebM properly included as a future web standard, rather than unilaterally deciding to make it a de-facto standard.

Reply Score: 5

RE[7]: Here we go again
by Radio on Tue 26th Mar 2013 15:12 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Here we go again"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

Does that count as enforcement?

If they change the codec to VP8/9 only and make themselves incompatible with existing browsers and devices, aren't they just hurting themselves? Are they blocking the way for other browser makers to implement VP8/9 or extract a levy from them?

If they put it in Android and Chrome, why would it be "enforcement"?

H.264 has been enforced. I never had the choice, no public certification commitee has been consulted, and nobody should have been able to implement it freely - until the MPEG-LA suddenly came out to declare it free to use for usual folks* (*conditions apply).

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Here we go again
by Radio on Tue 26th Mar 2013 10:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Here we go again"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

it's not being sold

So, you knowingly infringe on patents and release it as free software?

"Just a research project" is as bogus an excuse as excuses go, and the affirmation that you do not compete... Well, by releasing it "free", you undercut the patent holders, who would have no problem arguing it in court. Bogus bogus bogus.

Google tries to control the web. Right. By making a better product, under licenses so permissive that they will never be able to "bait and switch" the users. While everybody else churns brain-dead patents to be sure to scare anybody who could come close to the same ideas, and lock wide portions of computing.

Edited 2013-03-26 10:17 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Here we go again
by galvanash on Tue 26th Mar 2013 15:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Here we go again"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25


So, you knowingly infringe on patents and release it as free software?

"Just a research project" is as bogus an excuse as excuses go, and the affirmation that you do not compete... Well, by releasing it "free", you undercut the patent holders, who would have no problem arguing it in court. Bogus bogus bogus.


I can't understand why anyone would mod this bullsh*t up...

Do you have any idea how expensive it is to write software that is knowingly free of patent issues??? You make it sound like people doing OSS are just running around intentionally trampling on patents like gleeful children... The problem isn't anyone knowingly doing it - the problem is it is virtually impossible to find out if your code is infringing without spending huge amounts of $$$ on lawyers and staff to do patent clearances.

Sure, ReactOS is very likely infringing on some patents somewhere. But so it just about every piece of OSS in existence. So what? If the patent holder has a beef, they can take it up with the project and it will usually get worked out amiably. If your project is non-profit, for the most part there is no incentive at all for a patent holder to bother with it. Most of the OSS world ignores patents - and there is nothing at all wrong with that.

You imply that taking this approach is somehow "wrong". Why? The entire system is geared to protect financial gain. Most OSS projects are not in it for financial gain - therefore there is no justification for the expense of doing patent clearances. Patents are simply ignored - and unless there is genuine damage being done, why would anyone care? Do you really think that ReactOS is hurting Microsoft sales right now?

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Here we go again
by Radio on Tue 26th Mar 2013 15:41 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Here we go again"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

Do you really think that ReactOS is hurting Microsoft sales right now?

No.

Otherwise your project would have been shut down (at best; I can imagine you would be in prison or bankrupt in the worst case scenarios).

So if it is soooo difficult, why do you not cut some slack to Google and keep accusing them of "knowingly infring[ing] on patents and releas[ing] it as free software", of "trying to control the internet with stolen art" like a B-movie Fu-Manchu? With, guess what, OSS software.

Or are you too thick to notice the irony? Well, you already are oblivious to the contradictions in your own arguments, so...

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Here we go again
by galvanash on Tue 26th Mar 2013 15:48 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Here we go again"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

So if it is soooo difficult, why do you not cut some slack to Google and keep accusing them of "knowingly infring[ing] on patents and releas[ing] it as free software", of "trying to control the internet with stolen art" like a B-movie Fu-Manchu? With, guess what, OSS software.


Dude... You REALLY have me confused with someone else...

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Here we go again
by lucas_maximus on Tue 26th Mar 2013 23:06 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Here we go again"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Someone is angry!

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Here we go again
by viton on Tue 26th Mar 2013 19:03 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Here we go again"
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

Do you have any idea how expensive it is to write software that is knowingly free of patent issues???
I was under impression VP8 guys doing exactly that.

You make it sound like people doing OSS are just running around intentionally trampling on patents like gleeful children.
You may try to argue with ReactOS troll about "stolen art".

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Here we go again
by galvanash on Tue 26th Mar 2013 19:40 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Here we go again"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Do you have any idea how expensive it is to write software that is knowingly free of patent issues???


I was under impression VP8 guys doing exactly that.


Thats my point exactly. Google can afford it - a small OSS project with no corporate backing cannot and shouldn't even be expected to.

You may try to argue with ReactOS troll about "stolen art".


I never said I agreed with him. He is perfectly entitled to his conflicted viewpoint as far as I am concerned, Im not defending it... Im just saying that picking on him for not doing a full patent clearance on small, community driven OSS project is over the top - no one else does either.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Here we go again
by cpiral on Wed 27th Mar 2013 08:59 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Here we go again"
cpiral Member since:
2006-04-19

Long and happy, the sun gobbled up 98.86% of the matter. Now we revolve around its huge gravity and raging power. Corporate finance is that sun.

The original starring roles probably channeled moral energies to the willing of the construction of civilization. We do not worship the sun, do we?

Heirs naturally fail to appreciate. They too could contribute to an exponential drive, but can get lazy and abuse even each other.

The best financiers must unnaturally worry that the algorithm needs to be reinvented. Does one say that that judgement (reinvention) is unlikely to flow because of money?
Yes, and there any healthy carpenters with tools who refuse to work. Controlled breeding actually constructs things.

But patents cannot stop or otherwise control the romance of the find, the harem warehousing, and the reuse of algorithms or OS's in any recent information age, and for this reason the corporate or other financiers who advise to cause what Thom wrote is ("cost" free, and free libertarian "marketing") happening are reason alone to despise the outrageous competition between Jones's whose "discernment" will radiate the reward that Thom feels are gamma-rays, unlike any gentle yellow-dwarf of a sun ever worshipped.

It costs the original starring company money to 1) organize, 2) pay the coders, 3) decide which code is truly unique, 4) apply for patent. The patents are then (assumably) rightly rewarded, and the financial investment is (rightly?) rewarded. That is all previous money.

Where is the problem we perceive as stoppage of flow?
Coders should be paid like Wall Street physics doctorates? We do not worship coders do we? Yet they are the true (if Marxian) masters aren't they? (Recent information ages are for thought, and is that food to?) One cannot stop or otherwise control the love of computing or OS's, or money, so when is the full flavor a mix of flavors? Which financial intermediaries who broker what? Protection? Information? Protection of information? Protection against processes?

There probably should be one large monetary reward for each improvement of an algorithm for each deemed homo-faber type person and helpmates, and none for pure echolalia. Then one does evolve a sort of Stepanovian/Stroustrupian maximum, understood or cared by only a few human financier beings.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Here we go again
by WereCatf on Tue 26th Mar 2013 09:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Here we go again"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

at the very least FAT32 which Microsoft has threatened with, or does ReactOS not implement it?


As far as I remember, the FAT32 - patent was deemed invalid. Microsoft does hold a patent on FAT, but alas, I think there are work-arounds for that, too. I can't remember any details right now, but there was some discussion about this exact topic some while ago here on OSNews.

Reply Score: 3

Wow
by MechaShiva on Mon 25th Mar 2013 23:09 UTC
MechaShiva
Member since:
2005-07-06

The patent patrol is out en force judging by the early comments.

Look, I'm in favor of protecting intellectual property rights (FLOSS wouldn't be possible without such protections) but software patents give me the willies. They tend to be so nebulous as to be useless for purposes other than protection racket schemes. With that said, I look at something like this as kind of a good thing.

For starters, what the IETF is looking to implement is an inherently good thing. It's a royalty free codec that allows for communication using the web that implements methods previously exclusive to proprietary methods. Considering the heady idealism that fueled the early internet, this is a logical continuation. Anyone can run their own web server, mail server, chat server, etc. so why not person to person video chat? Why not plugin-less video/audio? Why not create an experience that provides a great baseline for everyone who has access? This certainly doesn't preclude anyone for extending things to enhance it further.

These days, the internet is incredibly personal and incredibly corporate at the same time. Settling on a lowest common denominator for audio/video enables it to continue in that uneasy lock step. If Nokia wants to assert rights over that lowest common denominator video codec, better now that later.

If they are right and VP8 does infringe on their rights, then those "violations" can be coded around and we can achieve the ideal. If not, then we can proceed without that encumbrance. I don't think this changes the end game at all.

So, all of that to say I hope things are sorted out and progress can proceed.

Edited 2013-03-25 23:10 UTC

Reply Score: 15

RE: Wow
by Kochise on Tue 26th Mar 2013 10:11 UTC in reply to "Wow"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

What would be really cool about this patent mess, is to simply change some rules :

1- Claiming you have patents under the hood and keeping them secret shouldn't be enough. Each time a company claims for holding a patent, they should open it for review.

2- If the claim was wrong, the patent is automatically invalidated and thrown into public domain : never leave a robber with its weapon !

3- If some FUD was successful in the past, some anti-litigation contracts signed, and the patent is finally found to be invalid, let's the tolling company payback the fees... twice !

These simple 3 rules would make the claiming companies a bit more accurate before making great noise.

Kochise

Edited 2013-03-26 10:13 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Wow
by gagol on Wed 27th Mar 2013 05:27 UTC in reply to "Wow"
gagol Member since:
2012-05-16

I think software should be protected by copyright, not patents. It is a bit like patenting story ideas. Can you imagine a world in which you have to pay royalties to Romero each time you create something involving zombies?

Reply Score: 1

Good for VP8, bad for Nokia PR
by chithanh on Mon 25th Mar 2013 23:34 UTC
chithanh
Member since:
2006-06-18

It seems that Google eliminating the MPEG LA from the picture was not enough.
But now that the patents that Nokia thinks may apply to VP8 have been disclosed, they can be analyzed in greater detail and in the end the codec will have much uncertainty removed about its patent situation.

Nokia itself is currently digging a PR hole. Several previously impartial observers have now voiced their disapprovement of the company and its practices. Actually, only the usual Microsoft apologists defend Nokia now.

Reply Score: 13

RE: Good for VP8, bad for Nokia PR
by Valhalla on Tue 26th Mar 2013 08:17 UTC in reply to "Good for VP8, bad for Nokia PR"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24


Nokia itself is currently digging a PR hole. Several previously impartial observers have now voiced their disapprovement of the company and its practices. Actually, only the usual Microsoft apologists defend Nokia now.

It seems to me that Nokia is all but officially a Microsoft subsidiary these days. You can change 'Nokia says...' to 'Microsoft says...' as far as I'm concerned.

Reply Score: 6

1c3d0g Member since:
2005-07-06

I concur. While I still like M$ for their useful Office products and still excellent Windows 7 release (don't get me started on Windows 8), I really dislike their use of other companies as a proxy to fight their war against their competition.

Reply Score: 0

not to pile on here
by kristoph on Tue 26th Mar 2013 01:14 UTC
kristoph
Member since:
2006-01-01

So your saying that because some companies said some bogus stuff about a given code that automatically means any similar comment by any company about a totally unrelated codec is likewise bound to be bogus?

You do see the sort of irrational nature of this argument, right?

Reply Score: 3

RE: not to pile on here
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 26th Mar 2013 01:27 UTC in reply to "not to pile on here"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

That's indeed a very irrational argument.

That's probably why that's not the argument I'm making.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: not to pile on here
by kristoph on Tue 26th Mar 2013 01:45 UTC in reply to "RE: not to pile on here"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

Ok well that's the argument you appear to be making. Do you think you could perhaps restate your argument for those of us not in the know.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: not to pile on here
by Thaylin on Tue 26th Mar 2013 14:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: not to pile on here"
Thaylin Member since:
2013-03-26

That does not appear to be the argument he is making at all. He is pointing out that this sort of thing is not unusual (although nokia claims it is) and that they really only have a small number of patents they are claiming (again contrary to nokia's claims). No where did he say that nokia's claims were bogus, just that they had to list the patent numbers so we MAY see if they are bogus or not.

reading comprehension my friend.

Reply Score: 3

Interesting.
by Windows Sucks on Tue 26th Mar 2013 01:41 UTC
Windows Sucks
Member since:
2005-11-10

My question is how much did they pay MPEG LA? Everyone one acts like Google just bowled them over when in reality they paid MPEG LA which means VP8 is now covered by license agreements. (Sounds familiar)

They gonna have to pay Nokia also, or Nokia might start suing Google directly over Android.

Gonna be messy. LOL.

Reply Score: 1

This is actually good
by sukru on Tue 26th Mar 2013 02:33 UTC
sukru
Member since:
2006-11-19

When these kind of claims occur, I actually find the end results productive, instead of looking at the painful process. After all is said and done, if (and hopefully when) the codec comes clean, IETF will have legal grounds to claim the codec is indeed patent free.

If Nokia really wins, we can still find something else. It will be a slight setback, but not a significant loss.

Basically, I prefer an open battle to sneaky shenanigans like the GIF/LZW patents back in the day.

Reply Score: 6

RE: This is actually good
by lemur2 on Tue 26th Mar 2013 08:05 UTC in reply to "This is actually good"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

When these kind of claims occur, I actually find the end results productive, instead of looking at the painful process. After all is said and done, if (and hopefully when) the codec comes clean, IETF will have legal grounds to claim the codec is indeed patent free.

If Nokia really wins, we can still find something else. It will be a slight setback, but not a significant loss.

Basically, I prefer an open battle to sneaky shenanigans like the GIF/LZW patents back in the day.


It is not good. Google did a very thorough patent examination of VP8 before they bought On2, and that examination revealed that On2 had done their work well, and had avoided other patents.

The first troll claiming patents that read upon VP8 (MPEG LA) has fallen by the wayside, granting Google permission to continue to offer VP8 royalty free to everybody (even downstream re-implementers) for a small once-of fee that is merely a pay-off to avoid the costs of a trial.

Google's original assessment of VP8 patent status withstood that first challenge.

Now comes the second challenger to VP8, with even weaker-sounding claims. This will, no doubt, do great harm to Nokia's rapidly deteriorating public image, and it may end up costing Nokia as much to attack Google (and fail) as it did for Oracle before them.

Who loses out of this?

Google: court costs in defending their VP8 IP.
Public: No codec for WebRTC, a W3C API definition to enable browser-to-browser voice calling.
Nokia: court costs, complete loss of any remaining goodwill, crashing share price.

Who wins?

Lawyers: fees.
Skype: no competition from browser-to-browser voice calling.

Hmmmmmm.

Edited 2013-03-26 08:10 UTC

Reply Score: 6

Big picture...
by Valhalla on Tue 26th Mar 2013 08:42 UTC
Valhalla
Member since:
2006-01-24

Looking at the big picture here, MPEGLA members wants to corner the market for video codecs so that they can continously collect royalties on all things video, be it on the web or on physical media.

As such, vp8 is a huge threat to them on the web as it is a quality video codec which is royalty free to use and implement.

Worse than the existance of VP8 is the proposition of it becoming a HTML5 video standard and thus mandatory to implement for HTML5 compliancy, same goes for RTC.

Obviously this would mean an even lesser incentive to licence their h264 codec through royalties for anything web video related, as you can suddenly be certain that by targeting the royalty free vp8 codec you will support all HTML5 compatible browsers.

When MPEGLA agreed to back off vp8 through their deal with Google it seemed almost to good to be true given what they stood to lose on vp8 becoming a web standard, as it turns out it likely was. It seems to me now that MPEGLA were well aware of the pending Nokia patent suit, and possibly others lined up behind it.

As it stands, Nokia (or any other patent sock puppet which comes after them) doesn't have to win in court, they just need to cast enough of a patent cloud over vp8 for it to not be accepted as a HTML5/RTC standard codec.

H.264 and H.265 can never become official mandatory standard codecs due to demanding royalties, but that doesn't matter since if the standard can't be vp8 which is a technically competitive codec, w3c will be forced to use a technically ancient codec like mpeg2.

And if mpeg2 is used as standard and thus mandatory to implement, it will still never be used in practice due to it's poor quality by todays standards.

This will lead to h.264 (and later h.265) being the 'standard' in practice and allow MPEGLA members to harvest royalties.

Sad thing is that even if Google wins this patent fight with Nokia, there will likely be another patent holder outside of MPEGLA suddenly emerging with a claim on vp8 technology which will then have to be dragged through courts.

In short, MPEGLA will fight tooth and nail to prevent any competition to their video codecs and by continously having vp8 being under patent infringement claims (they don't need to hold any water when it comes to actual court scrutiny) MPEGLA will be able to prevent vp8 becoming mandatory in HTML5 browsers and RTC.

As such I now doubt we will ever be able to enjoy the benefits of a royalty free quality codec being standarised across browsers. MPEGLA members stand to lose to much potential royalty revenue and will make sure there's always going to be some patent cloud lingering over vp8, atleast until h264/h265 is so cemented as the 'de facto' HTML5/RTC standard that it doesn't matter anymore.

Result is that everyone but the MPEGLA members lose out, as competition in this field has been non-existant until vp8 showed up and will go back to being non-existant without vp8.

It also poses a barrier of entry through the royalties which prevent many smaller players aswell as open source projects, a barrier which would not exist should we have had a royalty free standarised video codec.

Reply Score: 5

v RE: Big picture...
by bowkota on Tue 26th Mar 2013 09:09 UTC in reply to "Big picture..."
RE[2]: Big picture...
by Valhalla on Tue 26th Mar 2013 10:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Big picture..."
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24


VP8 is and has been inferior to H.264 in every single way. Performance, power savings, adoption, you name it.

Adoption, obviously given how long h264 has been around. Power savings, I have not seen any comparison between hardware based h264 and vp8, do you have any links? Performance, depends on what you mean by 'performance', decoding/encoding speed? visual quality (here h264 is better due to excellent mature encoders like x264 but certainly not by a wide margin) ?

And it's certainly not inferior in cost.

Good thing VP9 is "open". Look at the endless amount of information on it and the wide spread adoption. Oh no wait, thats H.265 !

Yes it's open, here is the git repository where you can follow the actual development in real-time, modify/build it yourself and use it, send patches, examine the code.

http://git.chromium.org/gitweb/?p=webm/libvpx.git;a=summary

The vp9 spec is not yet finalized but there are design documentation and progress reports:

http://downloads.webmproject.org/ngov2012/pdf/04-ngov-project-updat...

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/slides/slides-85-videocodec-4.pd...

http://downloads.webmproject.org/ngov2012/pdf/02-ngov-product-requi...

What part of your definition of open does this fail to qualify for?

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Big picture...
by moondevil on Tue 26th Mar 2013 12:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Big picture..."
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

What part of your definition of open does this fail to qualify for?


Free from patents.

Until there is a world wide change to patent law, open source software will no longer hold to the dream it once had if the developers can get sued at any given moment.

This is an advantage of commercial software over open source.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Big picture...
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 26th Mar 2013 12:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Big picture..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

This is an advantage of commercial software over open source.


Right, because Microsoft, Apple, and others never get sued over patents on closed source software.

Wait.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Big picture...
by lucas_maximus on Tue 26th Mar 2013 13:24 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Big picture..."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

He didn't say that.

More pointing out that this will continue to go on as long as these patents are around and it doesn't happen nearly as often in commercial software.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Big picture...
by galvanash on Tue 26th Mar 2013 14:34 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Big picture..."
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

He didn't say that.

More pointing out that this will continue to go on as long as these patents are around and it doesn't happen nearly as often in commercial software.


That is completely the opposite of reality. Commercial software ends up in patent litigation FAR more often than open source software. Why on earth would you think it is the other way around???

...and even if that were not true... The issue here is not that the software is open - it is that it is being backed by a commercial entity with a bank roll and an agenda. Community backed OSS (the far more common scenario) is virtually immune to patent litigation. There is no one with money to get a judgement from, and even if there were try getting a court to calculate damages when the infringing product is free and there are no profits to go after...

Sorry, but the patent problem is ignored by most of the OSS world - it is commercial entities that are suffering with this problem.

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Big picture...
by lucas_maximus on Tue 26th Mar 2013 15:53 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Big picture..."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Any like statistics on this?

What happens if it isn't backed by a big commercial entity? What happens then.

Anyway I live in sensible countries where there isn't software patents, there is copyright which is all that is really needed.

Edited 2013-03-26 15:55 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Big picture...
by 1c3d0g on Tue 26th Mar 2013 16:23 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Big picture..."
1c3d0g Member since:
2005-07-06

galvanash: save your breath. Everybody can see that you are 100% right and stating the obvious. Unfortunately, there's no use arguing against stupidity, which I may say, is fairly pervasive in this thread... ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Big picture...
by moondevil on Tue 26th Mar 2013 14:24 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Big picture..."
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

"This is an advantage of commercial software over open source.


Right, because Microsoft, Apple, and others never get sued over patents on closed source software.
"

They get sued by what is seen in the UI, not implementation code.

Edited 2013-03-26 14:24 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Big picture...
by anda_skoa on Tue 26th Mar 2013 12:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Big picture..."
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

This is an advantage of commercial software over open source.


Well, aside from making very little sense of mixing two orthogonal properties in a kind of comparison (one being about productising, the other one being about code licensing), I'd rather say the other way around.

A developer commericializing a patented technology is more likely to be sued by patent holders then one not doing so. Whether the software in question is open source or not doesn't change much.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Big picture...
by lucas_maximus on Tue 26th Mar 2013 13:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Big picture..."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Actually people get sued once they popular enough to be noticed. Regardless of whether it is open or proprietary.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Big picture...
by moondevil on Tue 26th Mar 2013 14:30 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Big picture..."
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

"This is an advantage of commercial software over open source.


Well, aside from making very little sense of mixing two orthogonal properties in a kind of comparison (one being about productising, the other one being about code licensing), I'd rather say the other way around.

A developer commericializing a patented technology is more likely to be sued by patent holders then one not doing so. Whether the software in question is open source or not doesn't change much.
"


What I meant is that with commercial software you don't get to see how something got implemented, as such it is hard to come with arguments to sue a given company.

Take Oracle vs Java case, Oracle got Android's source code and used it as starting point for their case.

Of course, even commercial software is not free of being sued based on the L&F of a given application or using unlicensed APIs or protocols.

With open source, you can get patent trolls going through the code and trying to find situations that they can leverage for patents. SCO's case for example.

They just need to raise the doubt that the software might break the patents. If the community cannot support a court case, they win.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Big picture...
by anda_skoa on Tue 26th Mar 2013 17:20 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Big picture..."
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

"Well, aside from making very little sense of mixing two orthogonal properties in a kind of comparison (one being about productising, the other one being about code licensing), I'd rather say the other way around.

A developer commericializing a patented technology is more likely to be sued by patent holders then one not doing so. Whether the software in question is open source or not doesn't change much.


What I meant is that with commercial software you don't get to see how something got implemented, as such it is hard to come with arguments to sue a given company.
"

No being able to see how something is implemented strikes me to be a result of software sources being not available, not as result of being commercial.

In any case, patents like those for codecs are applied to all possible implementations, so it really doesn't matter how someone implements the codec.

You don't need to source of software to see that it is capable of encoding or decoding in a certain format and it makes no difference either if the software was paid for or distributed free of cost.


Of course, even commercial software is not free of being sued based on the L&F of a given application or using unlicensed APIs or protocols.


No software is, commercial or non-commercial, open source or closed source.


With open source, you can get patent trolls going through the code and trying to find situations that they can leverage for patents. SCO's case for example.


Even if we assume that this is so, how does it make commerical software less targetable. This seems to be about reading the source, not having paid for the product.
Or do you assume that the EULA would contain clauses that forbid using anything found in the sources?


They just need to raise the doubt that the software might break the patents. If the community cannot support a court case, they win.


Sure, but some communities, e.g. IBM, Micosoft, Apple, Oracle, Google and so on are likely to be able to do.

As we have seen in the SCO vs. IBM case, they were and SCO lost. Everything.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Big picture...
by Radio on Tue 26th Mar 2013 14:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Big picture..."
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

Until there is a world wide change to patent law, open source software will no longer hold to the dream it once had if the developers can get sued at any given moment.

Yeah, like Opus. The best technical solution, open, but patent-encumbered, as Qualcomm and Huawei claimed rightly so.

Oh, wait.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Big picture...
by Thaylin on Tue 26th Mar 2013 14:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Big picture..."
Thaylin Member since:
2013-03-26

you do realize that being open does not mean free of patents right? There is no open source license that I know of that requires you to not patent anything you discovered.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Big picture...
by Vanders on Tue 26th Mar 2013 21:05 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Big picture..."
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

There is no open source license that I know of that requires you to not patent anything you discovered.

No, but there are ones that require you to license any patents you have in the code on a royalty free basis to anyone who receives the code under the terms of the license. The GPL for example (Section 11 specifically). The net effect is therefore the same.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Big picture...
by Kochise on Tue 26th Mar 2013 10:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Big picture..."
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Perhaps because H265 patented obvious themes for consumption, performance and since it's an evolution of H264, doesn't require to change everything for an implementer POV ? Perhaps also the mpegla 'mafia' that 'force' industrials that have some parts into the play to get cut-off of royalties back ?

Hard to say, because obviously everything is made to hold technical progress and freedom with proprietary racket. If it was at least free, but not !

Kochise

Edited 2013-03-26 10:35 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Big picture...
by Radio on Tue 26th Mar 2013 10:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Big picture..."
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

So, h.265, a codec developed and owned by major companies who are willing to earn royalties from it and lock competition out, is likely to become widespread? What a surprise!

And how lucky we are, us, end-users! Corporations know what is best for us! Let us prosternate in deference! Please milk me.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Big picture...
by lemur2 on Tue 26th Mar 2013 10:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Big picture..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

here's a bigger picture for you.

VP8 is and has been inferior to H.264 in every single way. Performance, power savings, adoption, you name it.


VP8 is not inferior in performance to h.264 except for just one factor: encoding speed. In every other respect VP8 can match or exceed h.264 performance.

VP8 is actually less computationally expensive to decode than h.264. This is because VP8 puts much of the "hard work" into the encoder process rather than the decoder.

If by "power savings", you actually meant a hardware decoder versus a software one, be advised that VP8 is a part of the Android Multimedia Supported Formats:

http://developer.android.com/guide/appendix/media-formats.html

Here is a list of ARM SoCs (which are used in mobile phones and tablets) from different manufacturers showing which support VP8 and which do not:

http://wiki.webmproject.org/hardware/arm-socs

Unless you buy Apple gear then your (recent) mobile device is more likely than not to support VP8 decode in hardware. VP8 is getting quite prevalent in terms of adoption, just about every current Android device on the market would support VP8 decode in hardware.

Since VP8 is easier to decode than h.264, and since it now has hardware decoding in mobile SoCs, then VP8 is actually likely to out-perform h.264 in terms of power savings.

Good thing VP9 is "open". Look at the endless amount of information on it and the wide spread adoption. Oh no wait, thats H.265 !


"Open" means royalty-free, anyone may implement it. That is most certainly VP9 and not h.265.

Here is an alpha-version implementation of VP9 you may wish to investigate:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57561111-93/googles-new-vp9-video-...

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Big picture...
by saynte on Tue 26th Mar 2013 12:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Big picture..."
saynte Member since:
2007-12-10

[quote]
VP8 is not inferior in performance to h.264 except for just one factor: encoding speed. In every other respect VP8 can match or exceed h.264 performance.
[/quote]

What? Didn't you claim this months ago and couldn't provide any evidence for it?

http://www.osnews.com/thread?542644

The conclusion from most comparisons is that x264 outperforms VP8 encoders in quality/bit. So VP8 is inferior in two ways: encoding speed and quality. Maybe the quality is acceptable, but it's still inferior to what a good H.264 encoder can provide.

I'd be happy to see some direct comparison that shows otherwise, but until then maybe you can stop repeating this unfounded claim?

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: Big picture...
by henderson101 on Tue 26th Mar 2013 15:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Big picture..."
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Ouch! Nicely played!

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Big picture...
by lemur2 on Wed 27th Mar 2013 05:16 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Big picture..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

The conclusion from most comparisons is that x264 outperforms VP8 encoders in quality/bit. So VP8 is inferior in two ways: encoding speed and quality. Maybe the quality is acceptable, but it's still inferior to what a good H.264 encoder can provide.


Your recollection is utterly inaccurate. The conclusion was that, for video on the web resolution and bitrates, if you are prepared to put up with a slower encoding speed, then for a given number of bits you absolutely can make at least as good if not better encoded video with webm as you can with h.264.

You have to go to extreme high resolution/bitrate/quality profiles before there is any noticeable advantage (other than encoding time) for h.264 that webm cannot match reasonably closely. Such videos simply aren't used over the web.

Edited 2013-03-27 05:22 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Big picture...
by saynte on Wed 27th Mar 2013 06:57 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Big picture..."
saynte Member since:
2007-12-10


Your recollection is utterly inaccurate. The conclusion was that, for video on the web resolution and bitrates, if you are prepared to put up with a slower encoding speed, then for a given number of bits you absolutely can make at least as good if not better encoded video with webm as you can with h.264.

You have to go to extreme high resolution/bitrate/quality profiles before there is any noticeable advantage (other than encoding time) for h.264 that webm cannot match reasonably closely. Such videos simply aren't used over the web.


Then see for example on page 27 (the same page I pointed out in the old thread) how x264 constantly out performs VP8 at ANY BITRATE. How can you still say that VP8 is better than x264? Do you have evidence?

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Big picture...
by Kochise on Wed 27th Mar 2013 07:34 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Big picture..."
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

VP8 is at least free. For most people youtube quality is enough and are not expecting Full HD. The quality difference is not that abyssal as you say.

Kochise

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Big picture...
by lemur2 on Wed 27th Mar 2013 07:42 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Big picture..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

VP8 is at least free. For most people youtube quality is enough and are not expecting Full HD. The quality difference is not that abyssal as you say.

Kochise


Agreed. As you say, not only is it not that much of a quality difference (at quality levels as used on the web), but also one can match that quality per bit using VP8 by choosing a higher profile for VP8. There will be a penalty to pay in terms of encoding time, but as long as one is prepared to pay that encoding-time penalty, then with VP8 one can still achieve the same performance as h.264 in all other parameters (for the video quality levels that are commonly used over the web).

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Big picture...
by saynte on Wed 27th Mar 2013 07:44 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Big picture..."
saynte Member since:
2007-12-10

I didn't say it was abysmal, did you see that somewhere?

I just said x264 has shown to provide better quality.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Big picture...
by lemur2 on Wed 27th Mar 2013 07:35 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Big picture..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"
Your recollection is utterly inaccurate. The conclusion was that, for video on the web resolution and bitrates, if you are prepared to put up with a slower encoding speed, then for a given number of bits you absolutely can make at least as good if not better encoded video with webm as you can with h.264.

You have to go to extreme high resolution/bitrate/quality profiles before there is any noticeable advantage (other than encoding time) for h.264 that webm cannot match reasonably closely. Such videos simply aren't used over the web.


Then see for example on page 27 (the same page I pointed out in the old thread) how x264 constantly out performs VP8 at ANY BITRATE. How can you still say that VP8 is better than x264? Do you have evidence?
"

All one has to do is go to a higher profile (at the cost of encoding time). You would argue that one can go to a higher profile also for h.264, and that is true, but one can go to a higher profile again for VP8, and so the two chase one another until we reach such a high profile that it is beyond what is used on the web.

As I said, for any h.264 video such as might be actually used on the web, for a given number of bits, it is possible to get a VP8 video to match the h.264 video as long as one is prepared to take a longer time to encode the VP8 file (normally done by having to use a higher profile).

This does not say that VP8 is better than h.264, it merely says that one can get the equivalent quality per bit (as far as any blind test can tell, within the range of quality as is used over the web), provided one is prepared to take the hit in encoding time.

Since videos over the web are commonly decoded & rendered thousands, if not millions, of times more often than they are encoded, if there is one area where a compromise has to be made, the encoding time is the best area to choose.

Edited 2013-03-27 07:36 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Big picture...
by saynte on Wed 27th Mar 2013 07:49 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Big picture..."
saynte Member since:
2007-12-10


All one has to do is go to a higher profile (at the cost of encoding time). You would argue that one can go to a higher profile also for h.264, and that is true, but one can go to a higher profile again for VP8, and so the two chase one another until we reach such a high profile that it is beyond what is used on the web.


False, the high-quality presets were used in both cases. That test represents the upper limit, that's why I used it. There is not an infinite ladder of profiles, there are just a handful.

Seriously, can you stop now? You haven't presented any hard evidence, so there's nothing to discuss until you do.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Big picture...
by zima on Mon 1st Apr 2013 22:42 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Big picture..."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Since videos over the web are commonly decoded & rendered thousands, if not millions, of times more often than they are encoded, if there is one area where a compromise has to be made, the encoding time is the best area to choose.

I don't know, a strong majority of YT videos is mostly ignored... only very few reach "thousands, if not millions" views.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Big picture...
by lucas_maximus on Tue 26th Mar 2013 13:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Big picture..."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

VP8 is not inferior in performance to h.264 except for just one factor: encoding speed. In every other respect VP8 can match or exceed h.264 performance.


This is rubbish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VP8

In a comparison done in May 2011, the libvpx encoder was found to be slow compared to common H.264 encoders and used up to 213% more data for the same quality video, when used in videoconferencing applications.


over twice as much data! So obviously it is not as good.

Edited 2013-03-26 13:30 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Big picture...
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 26th Mar 2013 13:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Big picture..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

over twice as much data! So obviously it is not as good.


May 2011 - a benchmark two years old.

I'm not saying anything about whether either of you is right or wrong, but we'll need more recent benchmarks than that, especially considering how fast VP8/9 develop.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Big picture...
by lucas_maximus on Tue 26th Mar 2013 13:47 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Big picture..."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Fair enough, did a bit more googling and the file sizes differences are negligible now.

However performance wise ...

https://gist.github.com/Hupotronic/4645784

H.264 encoded with the latest x264 offers notably higher quality while encoding almost twice as fast as VP8 encoded with the latest libvpx offering. If you see a test claiming that VP8 is better than H.264 quality-wise, it is very likely that the comparison was done poorly, either by mistake or intentionally. I very much recommend reading this article by x264 developer Jason Garrett-Glaser on the subject.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Big picture...
by pgeorgi on Fri 29th Mar 2013 15:35 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Big picture..."
pgeorgi Member since:
2010-02-18

Fair enough, did a bit more googling and the file sizes differences are negligible now.

However performance wise ...

https://gist.github.com/Hupotronic/4645784


That test compares "best vs best".

The main issue is that for h.264, the mandantory-to-implement variant in WebRTC would be "baseline". Higher h.264 formats are incompatible with baseline decoders (though you might not find baseline-only decoders in the field anymore, once people paid royalties).

The "higher" VP8 settings are more computationally expensive on the encoder side, but produce a bitstream that remains compatible with all VP8 decoders (there are no decoder profiles).

If universal compatibility is a goal (as should be on the web), an ideal h.264 baseline encoding should be used.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Big picture...
by galvanash on Tue 26th Mar 2013 14:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Big picture..."
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

In a comparison done in May 2011, the libvpx encoder was found to be slow compared to common H.264 encoders and used up to 213% more data for the same quality video, when used in videoconferencing applications.


over twice as much data! So obviously it is not as good.


I won't argue that you are completely wrong - in best case scenerio tests for VP8 and h.264 I find both codecs are within sptting distance from each other in most measurable metrics, but VP8 loses more battles than it wins.

However, your example is ridiculous. Videoconferencing??? You pick a scenario that h.264 was specifically designed for (low resolution, extremely low bitrate, realtime encoding) and because it is better at that you say VP8 is "obviously it is not as good".

Sorry, but there is nothing obvious about that. You cannot pick one edge comparison and make such a broad generalization.

Again, I am not saying VP8 is better than h.264. I will say that for resolutions and bitrates routinely used for web based video distribution (720p and 480p, 500-1200kpbs) it is definitely close enough in most measurable metrics that most people would not notice the difference.

Besides, frankly I think arguments on the technical merits of VP8 are wasted breathe (for or against). No one uses VP8 because it is technically superior - they use it because it is open and royalty free. The fact that it is actually comparable to h.264 when used for its target use case (web video) is just icing on the cake.

Edited 2013-03-26 14:22 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Big picture...
by lucas_maximus on Tue 26th Mar 2013 15:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Big picture..."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Sorry, but there is nothing obvious about that. You cannot pick one edge comparison and make such a broad generalization.


Firstly it is pretty important seeing that Google Talk is probably using it that it uses twice as much bandwidth.

In any case Okay, how about this one?

http://www.osnews.com/thread?556675

Again, I am not saying VP8 is better than h.264. I will say that for resolutions and bitrates routinely used for web based video distribution (720p and 480p, 500-1200kpbs) it is definitely close enough in most measurable metrics that most people would not notice the difference.


Except it doesn't look at the above link.

Besides, frankly I think arguments on the technical merits of VP8 are wasted breathe (for or against). No one uses VP8 because it is technically superior - they use it because it is open and royalty free.


Well that might not be the case, we don't know yet.

The fact that it is actually comparable to h.264 when used for its target use case (web video) is just icing on the cake.


Except it isn't.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Big picture...
by galvanash on Tue 26th Mar 2013 16:47 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Big picture..."
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Firstly it is pretty important seeing that Google Talk is probably using it that it uses twice as much bandwidth.


Goog Talk uses h.264...

https://developers.google.com/talk/call_signaling

So I don't think your point here has any merit at all.

In any case Okay, how about this one?

http://www.osnews.com/thread?556675


Did you read what I said...? That comparison is purely about subjective quality:

The situation could be different if H.264 didn't have such a top-notch encoder as x264 or if we were only comparing to H.264 Baseline, but this comparison is about maximum[1] quality obtainable with each format (using the best encoders available).


and the target encode is:

"Best quality" 2-pass 13600 kbps encode at 1080p50.


No one streams 1080p50 on the internet at 13600 (!!!) khps - that is better than most commercial bluerays are mastered at. All I said is within the parameters I specified it is close enough to h.264 in quality that most people wouldn't notice. I never said (and do not think) it is technically better, and it is definitely slower. But for the common use case it is targeted at it is pretty damn good.

Clue: The reason you won't find many good comparisons between webm and h.264 at commonly used resoltuions and bitrates is because the result is very boring and neither side of the argument can use them as ammo...

Edited 2013-03-26 16:50 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Big picture...
by lucas_maximus on Tue 26th Mar 2013 18:15 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Big picture..."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Actually it proves then that VP8 is still a bit crap for video conferencing.

H264 is better, whatever way you shake it whether it is perceivable or not. Most of the web is already using it.

Edited 2013-03-26 18:17 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Big picture...
by lemur2 on Wed 27th Mar 2013 05:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Big picture..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"VP8 is not inferior in performance to h.264 except for just one factor: encoding speed. In every other respect VP8 can match or exceed h.264 performance.


This is rubbish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VP8

In a comparison done in May 2011, the libvpx encoder was found to be slow compared to common H.264 encoders and used up to 213% more data for the same quality video, when used in videoconferencing applications.


over twice as much data! So obviously it is not as good.
"

Way, way, way out of date.

You can catch up a bit here, if you care to:
http://blog.webmproject.org/

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Big picture...
by ndrw on Wed 27th Mar 2013 00:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Big picture..."
ndrw Member since:
2009-06-30

VP8 is not inferior in performance to h.264 except for just one factor: encoding speed. In every other respect VP8 can match or exceed h.264 performance.


Encoder also happens to a part of the system that is exposed to patent issues. Luckily, it's also a part that is the most flexible in dealing with them - all known issues can be worked around (at worst encoder will be slower) and, even if you inadvertently trip on a patent, you can still control the damage by simply updating the code.

OTOH, it is really difficult to infringe on patents in a specification of the data format, unless the specification mandates such infringement. Some do, but it does not happen by accident - you have to force conforming implementations to use specific patented techniques.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Big picture...
by zima on Mon 1st Apr 2013 22:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Big picture..."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Here is a list of ARM SoCs (which are used in mobile phones and tablets) from different manufacturers showing which support VP8 and which do not:

http://wiki.webmproject.org/hardware/arm-socs

Unless you buy Apple gear then your (recent) mobile device is more likely than not to support VP8 decode in hardware. VP8 is getting quite prevalent in terms of adoption, just about every current Android device on the market would support VP8 decode in hardware.

You purposefully misrepresent the situation. Qualcomm SoCs don't support VP8 in hw - and Qualcomm is the gorilla in the room, in great many Android handsets.

Edited 2013-04-01 22:32 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Big picture...
by galvanash on Tue 26th Mar 2013 15:32 UTC in reply to "Big picture..."
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

It seems to me now that MPEGLA were well aware of the pending Nokia patent suit, and possibly others lined up behind it.


There is no pending Nokia patent suit. An IETF IPR declaration is not a suit - it is a commonplace procedure for patent holders to make the IETF aware of 3rd party patents that apply to pending drafts so that they can be reviewed for suitability.

I would be very surprised if Nokia actually files suit against Google over this. They are simply trying to bar VP8 from being used in IETF standards, partially to just cause Google grief and get some free press, but more than likely just to throw everything at the wall and see if anything sticks. They are essentially gaming the system to get free patent reviews - if there is anything to this we will know if a few months.

The reality is that I doubt MPEGLA knew anything about this - it is probably the other way around... Nokia threw this together as soon as they found out Google caved to MPEGLA, hoping for an easy payoff (or possibly to have some additional leverage in settling their other lawsuits with Google). If any of these patents are found to be applicable that is exactly what will likely happen - no lawsuit required (blood sucking lawyers are very expensive)...

Edited 2013-03-26 15:34 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Patent marketing
by anda_skoa on Tue 26th Mar 2013 09:45 UTC
anda_skoa
Member since:
2005-07-07

I also see this primarily as a vehicle for marketing Nokia patents.

It is basically a thinly veiled message towards license holders of MPEG LA video patents (e.g. for H264), saying "You though your MPEG LA license covered you use of contemporary video codec technology. You were wrong. Please get in touch with your Nokia contact to, ah, avoid any unfortunate things happening."

Reply Score: 4

Comment by Tractor
by Tractor on Tue 26th Mar 2013 12:49 UTC
Tractor
Member since:
2006-08-18

Well, Nokia is in bad shape today (thanks to Elop's "Burning Platform" strategy), and therefore has enough good reasons to uses its patent pool to attack anywhere and grab some protection money whenever it can,

on the other hand, it can be noted that Nokia is now little more than an MS's puppet, directly controlled by an MS's lieutenant.

Therefore, it must quite a coincidence if Nokia chooses to attack Google's VP8 now, but don't do the same on Microsoft assets.

Reply Score: 0

the list
by ndrw on Tue 26th Mar 2013 18:41 UTC
ndrw
Member since:
2009-06-30

It looks like the list contains six unique patents. With perhaps a couple more in some fringe countries.

Reply Score: 2

Seems Like
by drcoldfoot on Tue 26th Mar 2013 20:58 UTC
drcoldfoot
Member since:
2006-08-25

Nokia is positioning itself to be purchased.

Reply Score: 2

just buy it
by briankh38 on Thu 28th Mar 2013 07:16 UTC
briankh38
Member since:
2013-03-28

Oh for goodness sakes Google just buy Nokia already.

Reply Score: 2