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 554695
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: Comment by Nelson
by Lobotomik on Fri 8th Mar 2013 11:07 UTC 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

RE[10]: Comment by Nelson
by TechGeek on Sat 9th Mar 2013 17:43 in reply to "RE[9]: Comment by Nelson"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

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.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[10]: Comment by Nelson
by lemur2 on Sun 10th Mar 2013 12:15 in reply to "RE[9]: Comment by Nelson"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

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.


Edited 2013-03-10 12:16 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3