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 554569
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Thu 7th Mar 2013 22:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

Would it still be FUD if Google was found to infringe on the MPEG LA's patents?

Just wondering.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Nelson
by segedunum on Fri 8th Mar 2013 10:23 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Nelson"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Would it still be FUD if Google was found to infringe on the MPEG LA's patents?

You're spouting circular nonsense.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[6]: Comment by Nelson
by jrincayc on Fri 8th Mar 2013 13:54 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Nelson"
jrincayc Member since:
2007-07-24

If Google was found to infringe MPEG LA's patents, then it would not be Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, it would be true (at least in some legal sense).

Reply Parent Score: 2