Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 10th Mar 2013 13:07 UTC
Permalink for comment 555071
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 06/19/13 23:02 UTC, submitted by M.Onty
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 22:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-11-29
No one is claiming that and no one has ever claimed that,
Yes. The general talking point was that WebM had all the relevant patents already, so it wasn't a legal minefield.
Quite obviously that isn't true.
Except that's wrong.
Until last week people were quick to claim that VP8 was "unsafe" (hell, even Apple made this claim). There were plenty of people asking why Google wouldn't indemnify VP8 users yet completely ignoring the fact that MPEG-LA didn't indemnify H.264 licensor's.
The idemnification was only brought up because Google claimed they owned all relevant patents. Critics argued that if they did, they'd have no problem indemnifying their partners and sub licensees.
The double standard was hilarious at the time, now it's just pathetic.
H264 was developed using a standard setting process, which yielded a lot of disclosure about relevant patents, and in turn H264 is covered in SEPs.
In addition to this, the MPEG LA is a patent pool which facilitates the relatively inexpensive licensing of a bunch of patents related to H264.
VP8 has neither of these, so the situation is much more dire. A person willing to license all of the potential VP8 patents will need to sink a lot of money if a number of people start coming forward (as Nokia has).