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 556900
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[14]: Big picture...
by lemur2 on Thu 28th Mar 2013 07:45 UTC in reply to "RE[13]: Big picture..."
Member since:

I think all quantitative measures share the same flaw, that they do not necessarily relate to real perceived quality, although SSIM was designed to relate better to how people perceive image quality (I don't know if that's true in practice).

True enough. I believe (I'm not sure since I can't find any results to back it up) that VP8 actually wins out in testing which attempts to score real perceived quality.

I don't even know if anyone has actually done such testing for VP8 vs H.264. It is important also to note when any comparison was done, because VP8 has had five releases (named Anthill, Cloudberry, Duclair, Evergreen and Foxtail) since the original announcement, and each new release has seen appreciable improvement.

Reply Parent Score: 2