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 554597
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by Nelson
by jared_wilkes on Thu 7th Mar 2013 23:11 UTC 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

RE[8]: Comment by Nelson
by jared_wilkes on Fri 8th Mar 2013 00:39 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by Nelson"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

It's free for you to use via Google but it will never be free for Google for you to use it. Again, if Google and the free software idealogues are cool with that delusion, so am I. I will still call it "paid by Google" and not free.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[8]: Comment by Nelson
by jared_wilkes on Fri 8th Mar 2013 01:44 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by Nelson"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Also, your absurd ellipses of my quote is evident: I said: it's not free, because it is underwritten by Google. You contorted my statement to make it appear that I was saying that it was not free because it is patent encumbered. Two separate statements.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[8]: Comment by Nelson
by lemur2 on Fri 8th Mar 2013 02:09 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by Nelson"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"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.
"

Google expects to be compensated for this outlay via not having to pay license fees per use of a video codec. That is to say, Google profits via a reduction in its costs rather than by charging end users a fee.

Reply Parent Score: 3