Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 7th Mar 2013 20:47 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 554594
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.
RE[10]: Comment by Nelson
by jared_wilkes on Fri 8th Mar 2013 00:22
in reply to "RE[9]: Comment by Nelson"
Wow, you are the bonehead claiming that Google isn't paying for a license based on the logic of "because THEY can claim whatever" even in the case where THEY is Google.
Ars Technica got Google to answer the question of: are you paying for patent licenses with the answer "it is a commercial agreement." If you want to be silly and claim that there is no payment because MPEGLA can just say "whatever", so be it.




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