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 554593
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Thu 7th Mar 2013 23:04 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Nelson"
Member since:

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[7]: Comment by Nelson
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 7th Mar 2013 23:11 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Nelson"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:

There you go again, putting words in my mouth I have never said. I thought we went over this.

I never said anything about this being good for Google, so please do not lie about me having done so.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Fri 8th Mar 2013 02:21 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson Member since:

No, of course not. You're not doing mental gymnastics. Not at all.

Google is very clearly trying to save face, and here you are, towing the line.

If Google thought with any serious credibility that they could dismantle the MPEG LA, they'd go for it. They can't, so they sat down and took a license.

The fact is that VP8 was erroneously paraded around as patent unencumbered, this isn't the case, made obvious by the royalty bearing license Google just took.

I don't mind a discussion about the technical merits of VP8 and H264, and I don't care what Google does with its videos on YouTube, but Google was always being dishonest about the situation regarding patents and VP8.

I'm waiting for the blockbuster Microsoft-Motorola patent deal and how you'll try to spin that as well.

Reply Parent Score: 3