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 425917
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: No Need to Sue
by tf123 on Fri 21st May 2010 13:32 UTC 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[5]: No Need to Sue
by lemur2 on Fri 21st May 2010 14:35 in reply to "RE[4]: No Need to Sue"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

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


Smell the desperation.

Sorry troll, but you will have to do better than that.

The vast, vast majority of software methods are not patentable. There are a multitude of possible solutions to a given problem (in this case, methods of implementing a video codec). The territory is littered with patent minefields, it is true, but, to draw a little mind-picture for you, they are like fishing nets in the vastness of the Pacific ocean.

Two independent teams, both casting their own nets in any promising new waters, with a fishing authority to warn if either of them wants to cast a net in the same waters as the other has already cast theirs ... I hope I have started to draw that little picture in your head.

The fishing authority has strict rules that no two fishing vessels may cast their net in the same waters. Google has surveyed all of On2's fishing grounds, and reports that there are no MPEG LA nets anywhere in sight, just as one would expect it to be.

Why is this scenario so impossible for you to imagine?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: No Need to Sue
by tf123 on Fri 21st May 2010 17:28 in reply to "RE[5]: No Need to Sue"
tf123 Member since:
2010-01-28

What desperation? I have patiently answered and replied to most of your completely incoherent posts.

I don't understand your scenario because you keep running off at the handle with your own bizarro world fantasy scenarios that have no basis in reality.

It is quite simple for a recent and significant h.264 to have been misused by ON2. Yes, the reverse is also true. But for a number of reasons, it is far less likely to be so in reason. Still possible yes. This doesn't really explain how you said about 25 times that their is no way ON2 could misuse a MPEGLA patent because they are not in the patent pool or what the hell fish nets have to do with anything.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[5]: No Need to Sue
by cerbie on Fri 21st May 2010 16:27 in reply to "RE[4]: No Need to Sue"
cerbie Member since:
2006-01-02

The thing is, the same can be said for H.264/MPEG LA. It is of no consequence until the patents that allegedly are infringed upon are put forth.

There is no way to be 100% sure that your invention does not infringe on a patent, without explicitly using only methods declared in expired patents. Even the MPEG LA cannot guarantee that H.264 does not infringe on patents held outside of their influence, however unlikely it may be.

Reply Parent Score: 3