Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 31st Jan 2010 14:20 UTC, submitted by lemur2
Permalink for comment 407315
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-02-17
In order for there to be a patent troll against Theora, there has to be a patent that was awarded before the patents for VP3 were awarded to On2. In addition, the USPTO has to have made a mistake, and awarded that earlier patent, and also On2's patent(s) for VP3, so that they covered the same methods for video compression.
That is highly unlikely.
If a patent troll turns up with a patent that was awarded after the patent(s) for VP3 ... big deal. The patent(s) for VP3, being earlier, trump any later ones covering the same video compression methods.
Edited 2010-02-01 22:38 UTC