Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 26th Apr 2011 11:48 UTC, submitted by Elv13
Multimedia, AV And the fight continues. Only a few months after the desperate move by the MPEG-LA to get anyone - anyone - to submit patents to a possible WebM patent pool, Google and the WebM community have struck back. A whole slew of major companies have formed the WebM Community Cross-License initiative, basically a sort-of Open Invention Network for WebM.
Thread beginning with comment 471069
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Patent retaliation
by Hiev on Tue 26th Apr 2011 18:04 UTC in reply to "Patent retaliation"
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

Do you have any evidence that they didn't approach Google first? and if that is the case is there anything illegal about it?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Patent retaliation
by lemur2 on Tue 26th Apr 2011 23:41 in reply to "RE: Patent retaliation"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Do you have any evidence that they didn't approach Google first? and if that is the case is there anything illegal about it?


Anti-trust law is meant to prevent a dominant product in a market seeking to preclude the entry of a new competitor.

The DoJ is reportedly investigating MPEG LA right now over its attempt to generate a WebM patent pool without negotiating with Google first.

Google OTOH have shown every indication that they would be more than willing to purchase any patents which could read on WebM. Google did buy On2 after all.

So, if a patent holder made a submission to MPEG LA's WebM patent pool, which is clearly set up to try to put a royalty cost on WebM and thereby prevent it from becoming widely used, instead of going to Google and at least trying to make a deal, why would that not be something that the DoJ should scrutinise very intently in their anti-trust investigation?

After all, the patent holder might get a good price from Google, but OTOH MPEG LA's scheme seems explicitly set up try to prevent WebM from competing against H264, and therefore never becoming widely used (and so no money for the patent holder). So why would the patent holder not go to Google where they have a better chance of getting a good price for their patent?

Whenever Microsoft bring a patent lawsuit (say the one against TomTom for example) ... isn't it the case that the very first thing Microsoft said in announcing the lawsuit was something along the lines of "we tried to negotiate with TomTom but they refused"?

Microsoft do this, and say this, in order to avoid allegations of anti-trust behaviour.

Edited 2011-04-26 23:52 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Patent retaliation
by Hiev on Tue 26th Apr 2011 23:53 in reply to "RE[2]: Patent retaliation"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

You are not answering what I'm asking, so, here it goes again:

Do you have any evidence that they didn't approach Google first? and if that is the case is there anything illegal about it?

Reply Parent Score: 2