Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 14th Jan 2011 22:33 UTC
Google I didn't plan on this, but there's really nothing I can do. Unless you want me to write about the upcoming ten billionth download from the iOS App Store, you'll have to settle for this. On the Chromium blog, Google has clarified its decision to drop H.264 support from the Chrome web browser, and in it, Google basically repeats the things that those concerned about the future of video on the web have been saying for a long time now: H.264 on the web kills innovation.
Thread beginning with comment 458130
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: The new Microsoft
by oiaohm on Sat 15th Jan 2011 12:11 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: The new Microsoft"
Member since:

"If the new technology is fundamental for the inner working and evolution of a free Web/Internet, they're surely right to do so, and I'll join the choir.
This is delivering video to end users, not the inner workings of the web. You can publish all the images and text you want and not pay a dime.

But the proverbial ink is barely dry on the Google press release. Google refuses to indemnify against patent challenges. If you decide to use this technology and are sued, you'll get no help from Google. You only have their opinion (hardly subjective) that WebM doesn't violate any patents. Some may be willing to take that risk, others won't. Why is it reasonable to assume that Apple and MS will suddenly drop everything and commit resources to supporting a new, unproven technology when hardware support is just now beginning to materialize? We may very well see versions of iMovie and FCS that support WebM encoding and a future version of Safari may support decoding. But that's not going to happen tomorrow or next month and it's not reasonable to expect that it would. We also won't hear about it until it happens.

Funny enough Google does not have to indemnify against patent challenges. Since there is already a way got get this. Different of open source and closed source.

One under closed source lets say I am using a dll provided by a third party with a statement that all IP related is provided. That third party dll contains patent infringement and it was provided to me in good faith that it did not. I am not liable the maker of the dll is. Of course I can buck pass and keep on shipping using the tech until is proved infringing.

Now under open source. If I take the BSD code block from google and build it into my program as is. Same thing applies as above. Any issue of patent I just send them back to google with they wrote it. This here give you the right to presume Good Faith that it is not infringing and to refer the case back to the person who provide the promise.

If you write your own implementation then you are screwed and google current patent coverage does not cover you.

"indemnify against patent challenges" is only required in 2 case. 1 you don't have good faith. 2 you want to write you own.

Also its wise of google not to indemnify against patent challenges because it limits how many times someone can bring up the same case. Since every time it has to come down to company vs google case not comapny vs 1 of google many suppliers.

Yes double jeopardy works the way google has done it.

Where double jeopardy does not work the other way.

So each case over a patent issue can only be done once other than the 1 time in court the attacked makers will have todo saying I did not do it google did. Please see Google.

PS very much like the SCO case of asking for payments. I used AT&T source code with license for that see AT&T

Edited 2011-01-15 12:14 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1