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 554971
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Wrong link?
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 10th Mar 2013 15:46 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wrong link?"
Member since:

I hate to resort to pedantry here, but lack of proof for one side doesn't prove the other. How do you know they bluffed? Me of all people would be happy about it if it were true, but I don't want to start telling people it's true without something substantial to back it up.

True, but if I accuse you of murder for 13 years straight, only to retract said accusations for what is a very, very small sum, wouldn't it seem like my accusations were sketchy, at best?

And yes, it is a small sum as I explained (instead of per device/service/software etc. and only for non-commercial use, this agreement covers EVERY possible use FOR FREE for users).

I don't suppose we'll ever find out what the terms were between google and MPEG-LA. It would shed a lot of light on the matter if we knew whether or not there was a lump sum payment.

Maybe Google's next quarterly results shed some light on this.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[6]: Wrong link?
by Nelson on Sun 10th Mar 2013 16:02 in reply to "RE[5]: Wrong link?"
Nelson Member since:

So did Google take a license of patents that the MPEG LA never disclosed? I don't think so.

On2 likely never opened negotiations with the MPEG LA to the point where such information was disclosed under NDA.

There are very tricky laws on the books regarding patents and public disclosure, which is why most things regarding IP is heavily secretive.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Wrong link?
by JAlexoid on Mon 11th Mar 2013 02:53 in reply to "RE[6]: Wrong link?"
JAlexoid Member since:

There are very tricky laws on the books regarding patents and public disclosure, which is why most things regarding IP is heavily secretive.

There is nothing tricky about patent laws and public disclosure. You submit a patent application, that is public disclosure. PERIOD.
Contracts between two or more private parties have no requirement for public disclosure.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[6]: Wrong link?
by Alfman on Mon 11th Mar 2013 00:09 in reply to "RE[5]: Wrong link?"
Alfman Member since:

Yes well of course everything about patent trolls is "sketchy".

I'd still say it is statistically likely that On2 infringed on at least a few patents given how it is another DCT compression algorithm like mpeg has always been. But the technology was developed long enough ago that there have to be a lot that are expiring soon.

If you ask me, this is as plausible as assuming they were bluffing. Maybe the clock is running out on the relevant patents and they figured a google deal was the best way to monetize patents which would expire in a few years.

I would not assert that you are wrong, but until we get a hold of more facts, we are all just speculating what may or may not have been the case.

Reply Parent Score: 2