Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 21st May 2010 06:49 UTC
Legal Let the spreading of FUD begin! Known patent troll Larry Horn, CEO of MPEG-LA, is clearly feeling the heat - a heat that might set fire to his company's license to print money. After a decade of empty threats towards Theora, the company is apparently putting its it's-impossible-to-create-a-video-codec-that-doesn't-infringe-on-our-stuff attitude into practice once again, by assembling a patent pool to go after VP8. Google, in the meantime, is not impressed.
Thread beginning with comment 425889
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: No Need to Sue
by tf123 on Fri 21st May 2010 11:27 UTC in reply to "RE: No Need to Sue"
tf123
Member since:
2010-01-28

All you did was say, "Google should say they didn't infringe any patents." Ooh, good defense.

Of course, MPEGLA will identify their patents.

If they are valid patents, Google isn't going to indemnify anyone, anything.

Hell, they could indemnify everyone, right NOW, from ALL litigation if they were really so confident there was no patent infringement of any kind. You are the one who keeps saying that Google is so cracker jack, they can't possible have messed up their due diligence.

Edited 2010-05-21 11:31 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: No Need to Sue
by lemur2 on Fri 21st May 2010 12:49 in reply to "RE[2]: No Need to Sue"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

All you did was say, "Google should say they didn't infringe any patents." Ooh, good defense.

Of course, MPEGLA will identify their patents.

If they are valid patents, Google isn't going to indemnify anyone, anything.


As soon as MPEG LA identify which specific patents they allege, then this mechanism comes into play:

1. USPTO is supposed to only award patents for new inventions.

2. MPEG LA and On2 were both designing video codecs over the same period.

3. MPEG LA and On2 were both applying for patents on their "invented" methods, some of which they were granted, other applications were denied.

4. For each denial, USPTO would offer a reason.

5. If the reason for denial was: "prior art, not new" or "too obvious" ... then that method can still be used. No-one can patent it. There are a huge array of methods that fall into this category.

6. If the reason for denial was: "another patent already granted", then this method is clearly to be avoided. Use another method instead to achieve the same (desired) effect.

7. If the patent application was granted, then that method can obviously be used. You are now the patent owner.

8. Back to point 5: if another patent WAS granted later to another party for such a method, then your earlier patent submission that was denied can be used as evidence of prior art. Here, the USPTO goofed, and the later patent is invalidated.

The end result: both MPEG LA and On2 each end up with a codec that does not infringe on the other's patents.


Please explain how you think that the above mechanism doesn't apply, and VP8 has ended up using some method that is patented by MPEG LA, despite On2's development process, USPTO's patent awarding diligence, and Google's patent search.

Also, please explain why that doesn't apply vice-versa, and there cannot be an On2 patent (now owned by Google) that applies to a method used by H.264.

This will be interesting.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: No Need to Sue
by tf123 on Fri 21st May 2010 13:32 in reply to "RE[3]: No Need to Sue"
tf123 Member since:
2010-01-28

Because your steps are fairyland wishful thinking that you have no basis for believing is true?


I love how the patent environment is a travesty where the USPTO doesn't know its ass from its elbow, every company are greedy scumsuckers looking to exploit anyone they can, with overlapping or irrelevant patents and a whole nightmare of legal but dangerous patents that companies and individuals may not be aware of, but then... a problem arises, and the system is some ideal that works perfectly. Companies do not develop in a vacuum, apply for patent, receive patent, have clean timeline of precisely what is patented and what is precisely covered. Companies unwittingly infringe patents, companies knowingly infringe patents, legal patents overlap. You do not have enough knowledge (close to any) to say whether or not everything in VP8 is strictly patented by ON2/Google and/or predates H.264 patents that are related. You simply do not. I get that you hope so and want so, but that does not make it so.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[3]: No Need to Sue
by boldingd on Tue 25th May 2010 22:18 in reply to "RE[2]: No Need to Sue"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Of course, MPEGLA will identify their patents.


They've been claiming they hold infringed patents for some time, and they haven't shown anything concrete yet. Why do you think that this time they'll finally be able to come up with something tangible?

Reply Parent Score: 2