Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 26th Apr 2011 11:48 UTC, submitted by Elv13
Thread beginning with comment 471116
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Patent retaliation
by Hiev on Wed 27th Apr 2011 02:43
in reply to "RE[4]: Patent retaliation"
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-02-17
I don't even have any evidence that there are any patents proposed for the MPEG LA patent pool for WebM. They have not been announced.
I am talking abut a hypothetical situation ... IF there are patents placed by companies in the MPEG LA patent pool for WebM without any negotiation with Google first, THEN there will be a case for anti-trust violation.
This is a hypothetical - since in reality no such patents have yet been announced, how could there possibly be proof that the non-existant owners of such non-existant patents did not approach Google first?
Edited 2011-04-27 02:05 UTC