Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 7th Mar 2013 20:47 UTC
Legal "Google and MPEG LA announced today that they have entered into agreements granting Google a license to techniques that may be essential to VP8 and earlier-generation VPx video compression technologies under patents owned by 11 patent holders. The agreements also grant Google the right to sublicense those techniques to any user of VP8, whether the VP8 implementation is by Google or another entity. It further provides for sublicensing those VP8 techniques in one next-generation VPx video codec. As a result of the agreements, MPEG LA will discontinue its effort to form a VP8 patent pool." The word that stood out to me: the auxiliary verb 'may', which has a rather low epistemic modality. To me, this indicates that this is not so much a clear-cut case of VP8 infringing upon patents, but more a precautionary move on Google's part.
Thread beginning with comment 554549
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by RshPL on Thu 7th Mar 2013 21:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
Member since:

Question raises: is it possible to write even simplest software that is not patent encumbered for sure?

In my opinion it is very doubtful, that is why the big players build up their patent portfolios. FUD is the reason.

I would suggest that saying that VP8 is not patent encumbered really means that it is not practically patent encumbered. (as weird as it sounds)

Edited 2013-03-07 21:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Thu 7th Mar 2013 22:28 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson Member since:

No. Which makes the hilarious comments some people made when VP8 was announced even funnier. This is an impossibility.

You can argue about VP8 having better technical merits, but what you can't do is claim immunity from patent litigation. It is just at odds with reality.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Nelson
by M.Onty on Thu 7th Mar 2013 23:19 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Nelson"
M.Onty Member since:

Yes, so long as you make it clear its intended for use outside of America.

Reply Parent Score: 2