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 554591
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by Nelson
by Valhalla on Thu 7th Mar 2013 23:03 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Nelson"
Valhalla
Member since:
2006-01-24

I would say that's pretty damn concrete, more concrete than a legal action.

No it's not. It could easily mean that they just don't want any drawn out patent disputes in court to throw a wrench into vp8 being used as a web video standard.

Also, the fact that MPEGLA did reach an agreement with a competing format belies that, in fact, that format is not remotely superior and in no way poses a threat.

You can be certain that just as MPEGLA contains broad patents which can apply to methods used in VP8, the same goes for the many patents On2/Motorola has in regards to methods used by MPEGLA patent holders.

As for vp8, no, it's not superior to h264, atleast not in quality per bit. However it's not far off (there's been alot of improvements in VP8 these past years) and vp8 is primarily aimed at web video, and from what I've read it's very impressive in terms of 'real-time' video.

Obviously this is why Google bought On2 to begin with, they want their own codec which they can develop to be as effective as possible for the services they provide, it's not as if they will be doing less online video transfer in the future (Google Glass says hello).

Thankfully they are being (as often) generous and are releasing this as a royalty free open source codec which can be used by anyone.

The next iteration of h264 is h265, and the next iteration of vp8 is vp9, both are in active development and it's pretty impossible to gauge their quality against eachother due to their state of flux in regards to effectiveness/tuning but needless to say they both already improve on their predecessors.

When the vp9 specification is finally frozen it will be interesting to see if Google will need to make another patent agreement with MPEGLA or if they already took care of any possibly infringing patents in the existing agreement.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by Nelson
by jared_wilkes on Thu 7th Mar 2013 23:11 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Nelson"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

It's not free. It's underwritten by Google. It is not patent free. Google owns patents and has granted everyone access. And they have licensed MPEGLA patents and they will pay for that licensing for everyone that wants to use it. For an inferior format. This whole thing is a huge joke, and Google should feel embarassed at how silly and pointless this whole attempt was. Mozilla and Opera should feel like complete morons for jumping on it.

If you want to think that is a free and patent-free format that is useful for the web, have fun with that.

Edited 2013-03-07 23:22 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[7]: Comment by Nelson
by Valhalla on Thu 7th Mar 2013 23:29 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Nelson"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

It's not free. It's underwritten by Google. It is not patent free. Google owns patent and has granted everyone access. And they have licensed MPEGLA patents and they will pay for that licensing for everyone that wants to use it. For an inferior format. This whole thing is a huge joke, and Google should feel embarassed at how silly and pointless this whole attempt was.


Wow, I didn't think anyone could spout more irrational hatred towards Google than Nelson has done on occasions in the past, but you take the cake.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by Nelson
by some1 on Fri 8th Mar 2013 00:01 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Nelson"
some1 Member since:
2010-10-05

It's not free. ...Google owns patents and has granted everyone access.

That's what free means: free for everyone to use. Nothing is ever free to produce. VP8 already was not free for Google: it had to buy On2, pay to engineers, marketing etc.

Reply Parent Score: 3