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 554701
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[9]: Comment by Nelson
by lindkvis on Fri 8th Mar 2013 12:58 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by Nelson"
Member since:

The fact is that VP8 was erroneously paraded around as patent unencumbered, this isn't the case, made obvious by the royalty bearing license Google just took.

You're missing the obvious. MPEG-LA licenses are expensive. VP8 licenses, however, are given out free by Google and they have no idea of knowing how many licensees there are.

If MPEG-LA had a definite claim there is no way Google would have been able to get a full "royalty bearing license" to ship for free to an undetermined amount of people.

Since neither Google or MPEG-LA will ever know how many VP8 licensees there are, it also follows that the license can't possibly be "royalty bearing" (Royalty are usage-based payments).

What has happened here is that MPEG-LA did not have a definite claim, but Google couldn't be 100% sure. So both parties agreed to a license which is obviously much, much cheaper than if MPEG-LA had a definite claim.

Reply Parent Score: 3