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 554577
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by Nelson
by jared_wilkes on Thu 7th Mar 2013 22:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Nelson"
jared_wilkes
Member since:
2011-04-25

The announcement specifies licensing of techniques covered by patents owned by 11 different organizations.

I don't see what is speculative about saying that Google has paid for and acknowledged that VP8 is not patent-free or monetarily-free.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Nelson
by shmerl on Thu 7th Mar 2013 22:50 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Nelson"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

what is speculative about saying that Google has paid for and acknowledged that VP8 is not patent-free or monetarily-free.


Because that's not how it was worded. The only solid evidence would be those patents explicitly listed.

Edited 2013-03-07 22:50 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Thu 7th Mar 2013 22:52 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

This is never how it works. Ever.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by Nelson
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 7th Mar 2013 22:59 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Nelson"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

May.

MAY.

Low epistemic modality, i.e., techniques that POSSIBLY are essential to VP8. If they were certain, MPEG-LA wouldn't have used this particular auxiliary verb.

May. Look it up.

Edited 2013-03-07 23:00 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[6]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Thu 7th Mar 2013 23:04 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Parsing the words of a PR press release to try to play a semantics game.

Everyone else in this thread has their own rationale for how this is somehow good for Google, but you have by far the funniest.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by Nelson
by jared_wilkes on Thu 7th Mar 2013 23:16 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Nelson"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Everything about the statement says: we'll let you craft this statement to save as much face as possible but everyone will know and understand the truth -- that you are licensing patents that you need for your format.

That's the most positive thing out of this for Google: they got to word the announcement.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by Nelson
by TechGeek on Fri 8th Mar 2013 02:15 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Nelson"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

It says that Google licensed 11 patents, that *MAY* cover vp8. There is no admission by Google that it does.

Reply Parent Score: 3