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 554964
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Why?
by TechGeek on Sun 10th Mar 2013 15:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Why?"
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

How about the whole damn argument about Google's use of Java. It really doesn't matter what they copied or what they did or what Oracle thinks. When Sun owned Java they gave Google the green light to do whatever they wanted. They had permission and it was publicly given. Oracle is now trying to claim that Google stole something that they were given. Thats not even getting into the fact that Sun open sourced Java and OpenJDK contains all the same API's that Oracle says Google stole. How do you steal from something that's free?

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[6]: Why?
by Nelson on Sun 10th Mar 2013 15:47 in reply to "RE[5]: Why?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

This isn't the argument at all used by the Judge in his ruling (which is currently under appeal by Oracle).

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[7]: Why?
by TechGeek on Sun 10th Mar 2013 15:51 in reply to "RE[6]: Why?"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

This isn't the argument at all used by the Judge in his ruling (which is currently under appeal by Oracle).


No, I suspect that Google went with the what we did wasn't infringement strategy first. My reasoning would have Google admit it infringed but that it was allowed. But the Sun CEO is on record in the first trial stating that Google was allowed to do what they did.

Reply Parent Score: 2

v RE[6]: Why?
by bowkota on Sun 10th Mar 2013 16:05 in reply to "RE[5]: Why?"
RE[7]: Why?
by JAlexoid on Mon 11th Mar 2013 03:33 in reply to "RE[6]: Why?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

They knew perfectly well that they were stealing, they even admitted it in their emails.



Seriously? What did they steal? Code from Apache Harmony?
Your lack of knowledge does not give you permission to make outrageous statements.

Reply Parent Score: 7