Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 10th Mar 2013 13:07 UTC
Multimedia, AV A few days ago, Google and the MPEG-LA announced that they had come to an agreement under which Google received a license for techniques in VP8 that may infringe upon MPEG-LA patents (note the 'if any'). Only a few days later, we learn the real reason behind Google and the MPEG-LA striking a deal, thanks to The H Open, making it clear that the MPEG-LA has lost. Big time. Update: Chris Montgomery: "The wording suggests Google paid some money to grease this along, and the agreement wording is interesting [and instructive] but make no mistake: Google won. Full stop."
Thread beginning with comment 554952
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Wrong link?
by Alfman on Sun 10th Mar 2013 14:45 UTC
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

Your quote from h-online.com shows this link:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06520.html

But this is in fact a discussion of video quality and efficiency: "Video codec quality evaluations (Re: Agenda time request for draft-dbenham-webrtcvideomti)"

The other links show what we already knew last time, so I'm a bit perplexed about this statement: "Only a few days later, we learn the real reason behind Google and the MPEG-LA striking a deal, thanks to The H Open, making it clear that the MPEG-LA has lost. Big time."

If the links are correct, can you elaborate on the logic for your conclusion? I don't understand how a discussion on codec quality fits into patent negotiation or how MPEG-LA's bluffed? Thanks for clarifying.

Edited 2013-03-10 14:47 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Wrong link?
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 10th Mar 2013 14:48 in reply to "Wrong link?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

...I don't understand. What do you mean?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Wrong link?
by Alfman on Sun 10th Mar 2013 14:56 in reply to "RE: Wrong link?"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

To be honest, I'm a bit confused as to what the new evidence is that caused you to write this article and say that MPEG LA bluffed.

We didn't uncover the (edit: details of the) arrangement between google and the MPEG LA, so what did they bluff on? I'm confused.

Edited 2013-03-10 14:57 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Wrong link?
by jackeebleu on Wed 13th Mar 2013 01:43 in reply to "Wrong link?"
jackeebleu Member since:
2006-01-26

Long Story Short. Thom is LOUD, WRONG, and MISINFORMED AGAIN! If they why are they cutting a check? Fuck the size of it relative to profits, Google got called on their shit and proved as liars and frauds again. But Thom wants Google perks and access like "The Verge", so he'll suck at the teat and pray to the Brin and the Page as long and visibly as he can.

Reply Parent Score: 1