Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 7th Mar 2013 20:47 UTC
Legal "Google and MPEG LA announced today that they have entered into agreements granting Google a license to techniques that may be essential to VP8 and earlier-generation VPx video compression technologies under patents owned by 11 patent holders. The agreements also grant Google the right to sublicense those techniques to any user of VP8, whether the VP8 implementation is by Google or another entity. It further provides for sublicensing those VP8 techniques in one next-generation VPx video codec. As a result of the agreements, MPEG LA will discontinue its effort to form a VP8 patent pool." The word that stood out to me: the auxiliary verb 'may', which has a rather low epistemic modality. To me, this indicates that this is not so much a clear-cut case of VP8 infringing upon patents, but more a precautionary move on Google's part.
Permalink for comment 554609
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by Nelson
by RshPL on Thu 7th Mar 2013 23:27 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Nelson"
Member since:

To defend the devil, H264 could be as vulnerable to OnTech patents as VP8 is to MPEG-LA ones. That gives some amount of safety. While patent sanctuary is definitely a stretch, one should not succumb to FUD - and that is what Google in my opinion is fighting for.

As we established in other thread, anything could be patent encumbered so why not make a case for not using zlib, XML or any other technology now widely in use.

Let's not succumb to FUD.

Reply Parent Score: 3