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 554660
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Comment by Nelson
by jared_wilkes on Fri 8th Mar 2013 02:47 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Nelson"
jared_wilkes
Member since:
2011-04-25

Where's the line about MPEGLA or any of its licensors taking a license for ON2 technologies?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[8]: Comment by Nelson
by lemur2 on Fri 8th Mar 2013 02:52 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by Nelson"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Where's the line about MPEGLA or any of its licensors taking a license for ON2 technologies?


It is the same line that says "no admission that VP8 infringes" and later says "commercial agreement".

Having a license is merely "permission to do/use something". This does not imply actual use, it is merely a grant of permission.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: Comment by Nelson
by jared_wilkes on Fri 8th Mar 2013 02:58 in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by Nelson"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

There is no statement of "no admission that VP8 infringes" in the announcement by Google and MPEGLA. Do you actually think I care about what you think? You and a few others are holding onto an absurd delusion that Google is not paying for this license; that, in fact, the MPEGLA needed to settle to avoid paying Google and/or having its patents invalidated... but if such was the case, why wouldn't they actually announce that the agreement is mutual, that licensing is bidirectional?

Because it's not.

Edited 2013-03-08 02:58 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[8]: Comment by Nelson
by Lobotomik on Fri 8th Mar 2013 11:07 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by Nelson"
Lobotomik Member since:
2006-01-03

And where is the line about Google paying for MPEGLA patents?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[9]: Comment by Nelson
by jared_wilkes on Fri 8th Mar 2013 21:17 in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by Nelson"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

What do you think they got a license for? Do you actually think MPEG is issuing free licenses?

Reply Parent Score: 1