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 554688
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by Vanders on Fri 8th Mar 2013 10:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
Vanders
Member since:
2005-07-06

You're quite obviously right, given that Google didn't sign an agreeme- Oh wait, oops.

Hang on, back up: before today whenever VP8 or WebM were mentioned it was inevitable that 50% of the discussion would be something along the lines of "Waaa! VP8 must violate MPEG-LA patents! Why won't Google do anything about it?!". Now that Google have done something about it, you're now complaining about that?

Why don't you just get straight to the point and say "I don't like Google so I'm going to be negative about absolutely everything they do." and we can avoid all this extra waffle?

Reply Parent Score: 4