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 554585
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Comment by Nelson
by shmerl on Thu 7th Mar 2013 22:55 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Nelson"
shmerl
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

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Thu 7th Mar 2013 22:59 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson 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.


Empty words convincing enough for Google to take a royalty bearing license. Must be a nice moon.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[9]: Comment by Nelson
by shmerl on Thu 7th Mar 2013 23:03 in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by Nelson"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

No, MPEG-LA didn't convince Google to pay. MS and Apple essentially did I think. Google can be sure that no patents from MPEG-LA affect them, but MS and Apple don't care. So in order to "convince" MS and Apple to start supporting VPx, Google decided to pay a bribe to the trolls. Since they can't just outright formalize it as a bribe, they decided to "license" something (random). 11 is the number that was sufficient for the trolls I guess. That's how I see it.

Edited 2013-03-07 23:07 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Comment by Nelson
by jared_wilkes on Thu 7th Mar 2013 23:00 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by Nelson"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

I'm reading Google's statement, silly. Are they claiming they own the moon too?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: Comment by Nelson
by shmerl on Thu 7th Mar 2013 23:05 in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by Nelson"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

The statement doesn't even worth the bits it takes on the disk until the patents are disclosed.

Edited 2013-03-07 23:06 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1