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 554552
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by Nelson
by shmerl on Thu 7th Mar 2013 22:03 UTC in reply to "Comment by Nelson"
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

it ranges from unlikely to impossible that VP8 doesn't infringe at least on some of the innovations covered by the MPEG LA patent pool.


I don't think so. Looks more like Google paying these trolls to stop spreading FUD (so Apple and MS would have no lame excuses to avoid VPx because of "uncertainty"). Trolls are happy to get the money of course, but this whole thing doesn't prove anything about actual codec and whether it's patent encumbered or not. If Google actually licensed some patents - they should be disclosed in order to evaluate whether they apply or not.

I suspect Google won't disclose anything, because they didn't license any patents. They just paid the trolls so they would bug off. It's kind of good and bad. Good since VP8 can be more widely adopted, and bad since it only encourages further patent racket. I think not feeding the trolls would be a better approach in the long term.

Edited 2013-03-07 22:10 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Thu 7th Mar 2013 22:38 in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Hey, I'm cool with whatever rationale you think of. If you want to think that Google is paying somebody else money because Google is in a position of leverage, then so be it.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by jared_wilkes on Thu 7th Mar 2013 22:40 in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Someone has trouble with reading: "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."

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by shmerl on Thu 7th Mar 2013 22:43 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

So, what are those patents? Until this information is published, all the above are just empty words.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by jared_wilkes on Thu 7th Mar 2013 22:44 in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Also, Google is risking Google Maps being completely shut down in Germany, on mobile including competing platforms and on the web, because they are unwilling to let Motorola become one of the last Android OEMS (excepting Samsung) to license Microsoft patents... The suggestion that they have a strong case in VP8 vs. MPEGLA but just decided to cave to end the FUD (which has been completely nonexistent since shortly after Google's announcements because VP8 has gone no where, absolutely zero progress on the market place)... well, that's just special. And complete and utter denial.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by shmerl on Thu 7th Mar 2013 22:48 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

which (FUD) has been completely nonexistent since shortly after Google's announcements


FUD was triggered by MPEG-LA saying "they are going after" blah, blah, blah. Apple and MS slyly said they aren't going to implement VPx since "it's risky". That's exactly how FUD was working until now. So Google tries to fix that. I see no evidence so far that there are some actual patents which affect VPx. WebM blog writes they'll publish more info later, so let's wait. But I suspect we might never get info about what patents Google licensed if any.

We anticipate having the terms of our sublicense ready in the next few weeks. When those terms are ready we will blog about them here, so watch this space.


Edited 2013-03-07 22:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2