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 425910
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: No Need to Sue
by lemur2 on Fri 21st May 2010 13:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: No Need to Sue"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

MPEG-LA creates a "VP8 indemnification" license which can be bought for a fee, which will always cost more than an h264 license.

MPEG-LA 'suggests' in non-binding ways, such as in the press, that VP8 infringes on its patents. It never names which patents.


This is obvious fraud. It is not legal behaviour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket

Edited 2010-05-21 13:10 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: No Need to Sue
by Jezza on Sat 22nd May 2010 12:26 in reply to "RE[3]: No Need to Sue"
Jezza Member since:
2005-10-13

How is this any different to the indemnification licenses that MS is selling to cover their patents in Linux? They've been doing it for years and nobody has made any legal moves to stop them because it is fraudulent.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: No Need to Sue
by lemur2 on Sat 22nd May 2010 13:32 in reply to "RE[4]: No Need to Sue"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

How is this any different to the indemnification licenses that MS is selling to cover their patents in Linux? They've been doing it for years and nobody has made any legal moves to stop them because it is fraudulent.


Linux doesn't have an "owner". There are no patents covering Linux.

(However, Microsoft has no IP in Linux either, Microsoft did not write even one line of Linux, and anyone approached by Microsoft about Linux should tell Microsoft to go jump).

Neither of those is true when it comes to WebM. Google owns WebM, WebM is covered by Google-owned patents, and Google offers everyone a conditional license to use WebM. A license is actually "permission to use".

You don't need permission twice.

You are already licensed (by Google) to run WebM.

If anyone tries to suggest you need more than that permission, then that is directly fraudulent.

If MPEG LA tries this on, Google can sue them for "Slander of title" and "tortious interference", I would think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference

Edited 2010-05-22 13:35 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3