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 554958
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Why?
by bowkota on Sun 10th Mar 2013 15:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Why?"
Member since:

Who cares?

Go back a few years when Google first released VP8 and many people here (you among them) were singing its praise.
According to you guys Google had its own patents from On2 and there was nothing to worry about, doesn't seem like it today; remember MPEG LA licensed its stuff to Google, not the other way around.
Oh and back to my original point, who cares? It's been a few years and H.264 adoption is even higher.

Sure lets give that up and follow Google because everything they do is the name of openness. (this took me a while to write, couldn't stop laughing)

I wouldn't have any objection to any of this if you stop with this open and free bullshit. All companies want the same thing and they'll do anything for it; some of them do have a sense of morality but only when it suits them.

Edited 2013-03-10 15:19 UTC

Reply Parent Score: -4

RE[3]: Why?
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 10th Mar 2013 15:21 in reply to "RE[2]: Why?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:

You link to Florian Mueller, who is paid by Microsoft and Oracle, who has been consistently proven wrong on just about everything he says.

You'll have to do better than that.

Reply Parent Score: 10

v RE[4]: Why?
by bowkota on Sun 10th Mar 2013 15:24 in reply to "RE[3]: Why?"