Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 7th Mar 2013 20:47 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 554695
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[9]: Comment by Nelson
by jared_wilkes on Fri 8th Mar 2013 21:17
in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by Nelson"
RE[10]: Comment by Nelson
by TechGeek on Sat 9th Mar 2013 17:43
in reply to "RE[9]: Comment by Nelson"
What do you think they got a license for? Do you actually think MPEG is issuing free licenses?
They made the deal to avoid the "appearance" of being patent liable. That is not anywhere even in the same ball park as actually patent encumbered. Keep in mind that most of the people who want VP8 to be patent encumbered are the people pushing h.264. For a little bit of money, Google has now taken away their sharp pointy stick. AND Google can still give away the technology so as to be in compliance with W3C. For this being an epic fail for Google, how did they manage to come out with something that even h.264 can't achieve? This is a win for Google if it gets VP8 as the next web standard.
RE[10]: Comment by Nelson
by lemur2 on Sun 10th Mar 2013 12:15
in reply to "RE[9]: Comment by Nelson"
What do you think they got a license for? Do you actually think MPEG is issuing free licenses?
Apparently, they might be soon: VP8 could become MPEG standard.
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/VP8-could-become-MPEG-standa...
With the clearing of the patent issues that have cast a shadow over VP8's acceptability to open standards organisations as a open, royalty-free video codec, it is likely that its next major stop is becoming an MPEG standard. According to Rob Glidden, video patent analyst, Google proposed VP8 as the codec for MPEG's IVC in January. IVC is the name of one of the tracks that the ISO/IEC MPEG working group was exploring in its search for a royalty-free codec for web video and other uses. It had been looking at technologies where the patents were expiring.
But it appears that Google wanted to give the process a boost. Glidden points to a posting on the Internet Engineering Task Force mailing list from a Google WebRTC developer, where the Google/MPEG LA deal was announced, that notes:
7. Submitted VP8 to ISO SC29/WG11 (MPEG) in January of this year
for standardization.
The details of that proposal were posted to the IETF mailing list on 28 February and included an independent evaluation of VP8 (referred to as M28182) as part of the process.
But it appears that Google wanted to give the process a boost. Glidden points to a posting on the Internet Engineering Task Force mailing list from a Google WebRTC developer, where the Google/MPEG LA deal was announced, that notes:
7. Submitted VP8 to ISO SC29/WG11 (MPEG) in January of this year
for standardization.
The details of that proposal were posted to the IETF mailing list on 28 February and included an independent evaluation of VP8 (referred to as M28182) as part of the process.
Edited 2013-03-10 12:16 UTC




Member since:
2006-01-03
And where is the line about Google paying for MPEGLA patents?