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 556898
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[12]: Big picture...
by lemur2 on Thu 28th Mar 2013 07:36 UTC in reply to "RE[11]: Big picture..."
Member since:

Saying someone is wrong is not an attack; and I didn't tell you to shut up, I said that you should stop discussing until you can base it on data, because it's not a useful discussion without data.

I accepted the contrary evidence supplied by Radio, contrary data can exist at the same time, because if you read the details of the IETF data, it's for WebRTC, and uses the baseline profile. This is a legitimate use-case, I said that already. Where do you find bias?

I find bias in your lack of belief that VP8 was competitive with h.264, when by the very measures you use to "support" your bias, VP8 actually performs better than h.264 in about a third of cases, the reverse is true for about a third of cases, and there is very little difference between the two in the remaining third of cases.

The actual truth is that these two codecs by objective measurements (e.g. PSNR, SSIM) have very little difference. Most non-biased observers would call it a dead heat.

By subjective measurements I believe that VP8 is the (slightly) preferred codec, but most people cannot really tell the difference.

How is it not bias to rant and rave when someone questions your dubious (and provably false) claim that h.264 was better by every performance measure?

It is trivially easy to show that some people would judge some cases of VP8 video as better than h.264 even thought the VP8 video filesize was smaller. It is trivially easy to show that slow-motion or still frames from a VP8 video are marginally sharper than those from a h.264 video of the same filesize, resolution and bitrate. This better basic (still) compression is I believe the inspiration for webp.

Edited 2013-03-28 07:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1