Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 7th Mar 2013 20:47 UTC
"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 554582
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.
Member since:2010-06-08
They can claim whatever, like owning the moon. Without proof - all those are empty words.
When patents are disclosed, they can be evaluated (whether they really apply or not). Like in case of the Opus audio codec and bogus claims by Huawei and Qualcom.
Edited 2013-03-07 22:55 UTC
Member since:2005-11-29
They can claim whatever, like owning the moon. Without proof - all those are empty words.
When patents are disclosed, they can be evaluated (whether they really apply or not). Like in case of the Opus audio codec and bogus claims by Huawei and Qualcom.
When patents are disclosed, they can be evaluated (whether they really apply or not). Like in case of the Opus audio codec and bogus claims by Huawei and Qualcom.
Empty words convincing enough for Google to take a royalty bearing license. Must be a nice moon.
RE[8]: Comment by Nelson
by jared_wilkes on Thu 7th Mar 2013 23:00
in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by Nelson"
Member since:2011-04-25
Member since:
2005-11-29
This is never how it works. Ever.