Submitted by Ah yes, the MPEG-LA, the company that patent-trolled before it was cool (now every schmuck like Apple and Microsoft do it too). Remember how they once called for companies to step if they had any patents Google’s VP8 might be infringing upon? After almost a decade of empty threats against Theora, the MPEG-LA finally started actually doing something. Now they claim (in an interview with streamingmedia.com) twelve companies have stepped up – but, in true MPEG-LA fashion, which patents VP8 supposedly infringes upon remains shrouded in mystery.
The MPEG-LA is not new to empty threats – the company, led by Larry Horn, a known patent troll, has been making claims about Theora for almost a decade, but never actually backed up said claims. This was probably because as an open source standard with relatively little adoption, no money was to be had from launching a patent lawsuit.
With Google purchasing and releasing VP8 as open source, including a non-revocable unlimited patent license, there’s suddenly money to be had from On2’s technologies. Larry Horn, vulture that he is, is now smelling money, and as such, has started the process of forming a patent pool around VP8. There’s no way of proving it, of course, but it wouldn’t surprise me if Horn has made a few trips to Cupertino and Redmond as well.
This process has now yielded results, but it appears the process is far, far from complete. Horn claims 12 companies have stepped up claiming they own patents essential to VP8, but in true FUD-fashion, Horn refuses to name the patents or companies in question – thus preventing the web from investigating this whole thing.
This reluctance indicates Horn isn’t particularly certain about the strengths of these twelve companies’ patents, since if he was, he’d be shouting it off the rooftops. It could also mean that these companies are uncertain about their chances against fighting Google in court, and thus, want to keep the patents secret so they may patent troll the heck out of a smaller company implementing VP8. It’s also interesting that it took the MPEG-LA four months after the deadline before they announced this news.
Google has already responded to this news, but it’s a fairly default response. “MPEG LA has alluded to a VP8 pool since WebM launched – this is nothing new,” a Google spokesperson told streamingmedia.com, “The web succeeds with open, community-developed innovation, and the WebM Project brings the same principles to web video. The vast majority of the industry supports free and open development, which is why we formed the WebM CCL enabling member organizations to license patents they may have that are essential to WebM technologies to other members of the CCL. We are firmly committed to the project and establishing an open codec for HTML5 video.”
The WebM CCL already contains some industry heavyweights (like, but not limited to, AMD, Samsung, Texas Instruments), and the list of companies supporting WebM is immense, and includes just about every chip maker except Intel. This is a formidable group to take on in any legal fight.
MPEG-LA companies biggest revenue comes not from the Web, but from hardware manufacturers, who have to pay license fees for implementing H.264 in cameras, digital players and etc. Google obviously wants to push WebM beyond the Web as well, and make it ubiquitous in hardware world. That’s why MPEG-LA gets nervous now. Hopefully antitrust regulations will put those trolls in place.
Edited 2011-07-31 21:49 UTC
Where to begin?
The H.264 licensors are global giants in R&D and manufacturing.
Mitsubishi. Philips. Samsung. Sony. Toshiba. About thirty in all, and none of them known for rolling over and playing dead for anyone.
Some of them have researching modern television systems from the days when Baird was still mucking around with the Nipkov disk.
Google licences three MPEG LA patent pools. MPEG-2. MPEG-4. AVC/H.264.
There are 1,030 licensees in the H.264 patent pool alone.
That may give you some idea of how difficult finding a comercially viable solution for video compression really is.
How hard it will be for WebM to gain traction.
MPEG-LA pretends to think that such monopoly built from individual patents is legal. But in essence it’s just an attempt to circumvent antitrust regulations.
One day, a patent bank will be created. Something like ratio of Suing/BeingSued will mean more than money. Shortly, first exchange starts operating. And first Black Friday will happen after some time. Too many companies will go bankrupt at once because of bad S/BS ratio. State would not be capable of intervention since wealthiest corporations will fully control the economy. The patents will change from implementation to whole areas of thinking. Minefields will be too large to make any development possible outside largest corporations. Hopefully, after whole economy will turn to standstill, close to the deadlock, largest players will agree on granting rights to think and develop country-wide for a new “Think tax”. Any living being, including monkeys and trained dogs will be paying every year 10% to the S/BS Bank, which will divide this income among top players. Or maybe, the best thing would be to simply erase whole software patent debacle before it gets too bad.
If we’re going to have software patents, I think it should be required for a patent holder to name the actual patents in question when they start making threats. For example, ‘you’re violating our patents, but we’re not gonna tell you which ones’ is just BS.
Thats just it though… MPEGLA doesn’t own any patents and thusly can’t actually sue anyone for patent infringement… They simply manage a patent pool -there job is not to sue infringers, it is to sell them licenses. As such, they can get away with saying pretty much anything they want. In the end it is all empty threats. They themselves have no teeth, their job is to bark.
Until a patent holder steps forward we should just ignore all the yelping…
Edited 2011-08-01 03:46 UTC
I thought MPEG-LA’s job was also to “bite”. They have the right and obligation to collect license fees on behalf of their members. So if the patents are entrusted to them, they should be able to sue.. So why don’t they?
MPEG-LA said 12 parties (i.e. patent holders) have stepped up, but that is all that has been done at the moment. Most likely, MPEG-LA is researching the claims for validity and figuring out the best way to set up “payment plans” before they take any legal action. If the claims are questionable then they could be working on a FUD campaign.
The job of the MPEG-LA is just to collect license fees. They don’t own the patents. They are just a broker. Only the patent owner can sue for infringement.
How is this different from any other FUD or PR manoeuvring? Companies talk shit all the time, why should they be exempt from talking shit about patent portfolios?
My understanding is that patent holders do tell those to whom they make threats which patents are at issue. But they do it under NDA. If they actually go to court, then they publicly disclose which patents are at issue.
Anyway, I’m pretty sure that Google knows that they infringe patents right and left, and knows which ones. Which is why they don’t indemnify any of their clients.
An NDA is a Non-Disclosure Agreement. Note the operative word, “agreement”.
Patent Troll: “You stole my idea”!
Patent Troll: “I am threatening you with a lot of trouble”.
Troll’s victim: “What idea is that”?
Patent Troll: “I am not going to tell you unless you agree to tell no-one else”.
Troll’s victim: “Why should I agree to that”?
Troll’s victim: “Since you can’t say what the alleged idea was, go away you silly person.”
In my experience, it happens more like this:
Option 1: the Long game
Org 1: “Hi we’d like to do business with you”
Org 2: “Okay, here is an NDA”
(time passes – CEO’s change)
Org 2: “We believe you are now infringing on our patents”
Org 1: “Drat!”
Option 2: the kicker
Org 2: “We have released our cool new API!!”
Org 1: “See you in court”
Org 2: “Wha? What did we do?”
Org 1: “Sign this NDA and we can talk, else you’ll have to wait. Meanwhile we will make bad press for you!”
Org 2: “Drat!”
I’m sorry, but MPEG-LA put out a ‘press release’ that was intended to spread FUD and you did their bidding by publishing it. Sure you added a negative spin. I’m sure that most of the comments on it are going to be negative too. But it helps them accomplish their goals, which is plain old irresponsible.
If this was real news, we would know: which patents are involved (ideally), which companies are involved (minimally), or at least what course of action MPEG-LA is taking (on a slow news day). At least then people would have a better chance of determining what the future of VP8 is.
Reporting on it isn’t the problem, information is good. The (overt) ‘negative spin’ is a problem, however. Point out that there’s still no substance to MPEG-LA’s claims, sure, great, you’ll be doing a better job of covering the issue than Ars* but the constant accusations of ‘trolling’ and vitriol are counter-productive and just make this look like a desperate attack piece.
* http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2011/07/mpeg-la-12-companies-own-pa…
What, I’m not supposed to inform people that Larry Horn is a patent troll? Considering he leads a patent consortium – that seems like some pretty vital information. I think the fact that other publications ignore this fact is far more worrying than my usual somewhat over-the-top style.
Be nice if we had OSNews again, and not OSMyOpinion or OSSpeculation etc…
Just because you have an idea or inkling doesn’t mean you are correct, have all the facts and so on. Why is it so necessary to inject your “flavour” into these things?
I know, I know, I don’t need to read this FUD either…
Yes, because Slashdot is only about slashes and dots, The New York Times is only about New York, the Washington Post is a daily periodical on the state of posts in Washington, and so on, and so forth.
OSNews has changed its scope over the years, and this change was clearly announced and completed over 2.5 years ago. If you read OSNews, you’ll have to deal with my quirky writing style. I do this for fun, and as such, that’s going to be reflected in the writing. I’m sorry if you don’t like that, but hey, we can’t be all things to all people.
His point doesn’t seem to be that we’re straying from the “OS” part of our mandate, but rather that you, we, whoever are putting too much editorial into our news. I think that’s a valid criticism, because I think you can go to far in one direction or the other. A media outlet can be too impartial, and you end up inadvertently giving crazy ideas and bad people a fair shake they don’t deserve. But we could also take sides too brazenly, to the point that legitimate concerns are ignored or belittled.
Now I personally feel pretty strongly about IP issues, and support having OSNews have an official IP reform editorial position. I also think that IP issues are crucial to the future of computing technology, so it’s on-topic to talk about.
However, it’s also a legitimate complaint to say, “I don’t want OSNews to become merely a clearinghouse for IP issues.” Or, “Enough with the patent-related postings already!”
So I’d recommend that we stay on guard, even though we’re comfortable with our pro-patent reform editorial position, not to get too fanatical about it. And make sure it’s not crowding out other news.
Their is a lot of variety news on osnews.
Think we are over critical on that. Me sinner as well.
This software IP issue is so important that we need such articles to win over the hearts and minds of people.
Your ‘over the top’ style is the problem, though; it borders on demagoguery. Being the much-needed voice of reason is not the same thing as being another talking head and incensing the perennially outraged masses.
You also almost buried the lead under background information and analysis (the first link in this story doesn’t even lead to this story but an equally incendiary piece you’d written previously). If you want to editorialise, try to separate it from your informational content: at least keep the opening paragraph as uncoloured as possible, then introduce background info and your own interpretation in the subsequent paragraphs. Instead, you’re written this so that we’re supposed to hate MPEG-LA before we even find out what they’ve said.
I don’t see what’s wrong with that. NOTHING GOOD has ever come out of this fucking MPEG-LA cartel. Yes, they’re just like organized crime, that’s what they really are.
Pretty soon, if they aren’t stopped by *somebody*, you won’t be able to watch your own God damned home video’s without having to pay them your hard-earned cash. These bleeding trolls must be stopped at all costs!
Probably because you happen to agree with his conclusions. That’s rather besides the point, however.
I find it amusing watching you anti-patent people twist yourselves in knots over something that you simply can’t find a way to change.
I’m willing to bet that this MPEG-LA nonsense is all “hot air” and that there’s nothing in it.
If they *really* had something, they’d be a lot more upfront about it. I say they’re *bluffing*.
They will try to keep the masses guessing, just like SCO did, and just like SCO, they will go down in a burning heap.
As i am logged in, could there not be a setting somewhere where i can disable the viewing of articles categorized to patents and mobile phone news? None of them interest me at all any more.
But then you’d be left staring at an empty white page.