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 554978
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Nokia vs HTC and the patent war
by Nelson on Sun 10th Mar 2013 16:10 UTC in reply to "Nokia vs HTC and the patent war"
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

12 patent holders came forward to join the MPEG LA patent pool. It never materialized, because as a result of Google's licensing of the patents in question, it was unnecessary from the MPEG LA's perspective.

And Florian routinely sits in on court proceedings, so it isn't out of the ordinary for him to break news on such matters. I'm not entirely sure if you're suggesting he's making it up or not.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

12 patent holders came forward to join the MPEG LA patent pool. It never materialized, because as a result of Google's licensing of the patents in question, it was unnecessary from the MPEG LA's perspective.


Some companies (nowhere near the entirety of H.264 licensors) said ‘we may have patents that read on this standard’, little happened for over a year, MPEG-LA then put out a press release that they are abolishing setting up a VP8 pool.
And you take it as a certainty that Google must have paid to have that not happen?

I’m unsure you fathom the size of this news, MPEG-LA have resigned themselves and said their reach does not cover WebM. That’s it, FUD over, move on.

Reply Parent Score: 4

some1 Member since:
2010-10-05

12 patent holders came forward to join the MPEG LA patent pool. It never materialized, because as a result of Google's licensing of the patents in question, it was unnecessary from the MPEG LA's perspective.

Do you seriously believe that? If MPEG LA had any ground to stand on, they'd be running the pool themselves, deciding the licensing terms and rates (they'd never allow free sublicensing) and getting their fee. Just like they do for VC1, Microsoft's codec that Microsoft originally wanted to be royalty free.

What likely happened here is, Google approached those 11 patent holders and agreed on licensing deals with them. This left MPEG LA without anyone in their pool. Google then offered MPEG LA to sign an agreement, allowing MPEG LA to save face and maybe get some fee, in return for discontinuing the pool.

Reply Parent Score: 5