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 554979
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by bowkota on Sun 10th Mar 2013 16:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
bowkota
Member since:
2011-10-12

Great, allow me to address it then: It doesn't matter.

What does matter is VP8 proponents claiming that VP8 is magically safer. No one is claiming that H264 is completely absolved from any and all patent risk, precisely because such a claim is absurd.

This has never been about saying that H264 is safer, but that VP8 is not safer.


Here's a list of the H.264 licencors, just look at how long that list is and the names on it. http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensors.aspx

On the other hand, you have Google, the biggest advertiser on the planet (their major(only?) source of profit) with VP8.

What a dilemma.

Edited 2013-03-10 16:12 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Nelson
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 10th Mar 2013 16:26 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Nelson"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29
RE[5]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Sun 10th Mar 2013 16:31 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Thats a list of supporters, not patent holders. You may as well have listed WebM's Facebook friends.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Nelson
by TechGeek on Mon 11th Mar 2013 00:08 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Nelson"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

"Great, allow me to address it then: It doesn't matter.

What does matter is VP8 proponents claiming that VP8 is magically safer. No one is claiming that H264 is completely absolved from any and all patent risk, precisely because such a claim is absurd.

This has never been about saying that H264 is safer, but that VP8 is not safer.


Here's a list of the H.264 licencors, just look at how long that list is and the names on it. http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensors.aspx

On the other hand, you have Google, the biggest advertiser on the planet (their major(only?) source of profit) with VP8.

What a dilemma.
"

Know who ISNT on that list? Motorola. Their h.264 patents are NOT part of the MPEG-LA and may be exactly why this deal was made in favor of Google.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[5]: Comment by Nelson
by Alfman on Mon 11th Mar 2013 00:16 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Nelson"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

TechGeek,

"Know who ISNT on that list? Motorola. Their h.264 patents are NOT part of the MPEG-LA and may be exactly why this deal was made in favor of Google."

That's very insightful!

Technically though it might be difficult to bribe the MPEG-LA organization directly, since they do not build anything that could infringe Motorola (now google) patents themselves. Do you think google would have blackmailed the MPEG-LA by threating to sue it's members?

Reply Parent Score: 2