Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 25th Mar 2013 21:09 UTC
Legal Late last week, Nokia dropped what many consider to be a bomb on the WebM project: a list of patents that VP8 supposedly infringes in the form of an IETF IPR declaration. The list has made the rounds around the web, often reported as proof that VP8 infringes upon Nokia's patents. All this stuff rang a bell. Haven't we been here before? Yup, we have, with another open source codec called Opus. Qualcomm and Huawei made the same claims as Nokia did, but they turned out to be complete bogus. As it turns out, this is standard practice in the dirty business of the patent licensing industry.
Permalink for comment 556787
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[13]: Here we go again
by lemur2 on Wed 27th Mar 2013 05:27 UTC in reply to "RE[12]: Here we go again"
Member since:

"Which raises the question why you oppose the adoption of VP8/9. If VP8/9 gets declared mandatory-to-implement (like Opus), Apple will have no choice but to implement it or become non-compliant with web standards. This would mean VP8/9 becomes a baseline - requiring only one, single encode.

Why do you oppose this?

I don't.

I just don't think it matters as much as you do as there are two decent already existing solutions that work now. and have decent GPU acceleration support.

h265 will likely have this also.

VP8 has fine GPU acceleration support where it is needed (ARM SoCs for mobile devices):

VP9 will likely have this also.

Reply Parent Score: 1