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 554990
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Sun 10th Mar 2013 18:07 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

Does Theora violate some broad patent?
Almost certainly.

Would said patent possibly be voided if it were brought up in court and scrutinised? Possibly.

So it’s not just a case of the MPEG-LA saying that Theora violates their patents, they know they must also beat a games of chess ahead of time with an opponent whose moves predates their own.


Kroc - 1st May 2010
http://www.osnews.com/thread?421906

I believed then the MPEG-LA were blustering, and that since the VP codecs pre-dated H.264, they had not much to stand on but noise.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Kroc
by Nelson on Sun 10th Mar 2013 18:12 in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I think Nokia likely has a strong stick to beat VP8 with, given their investment in the area. Even more dangerous, they participated in no SDO, so all of their patents are non-standard-essential.

VP8 was a air dropped specification, it wasn't developed in the open, and as such, an argument can be made that it is exposed to significant patent risk (compared to H264) because the amount of known IP holders is up in the air, and there are little to no SEPs covering its implementation.

It is at best less economically viable, and at worst more dangerous to use VP8 because of what I mentioned above, and a lack of a patent pool.

If a significant amount of IP holders come out of the wood works, good luck licensing them individually vs a patent pool.

Edit: Not that I particularly buy the less safe argument, I'm just providing it for discussions sake. I think that both H264 and VP8 have patent uncertainty. Case in point being Microsoft and Motorola duking it out over patents related to H264.

Edited 2013-03-10 18:15 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by Vanders on Sun 10th Mar 2013 23:37 in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

Everything you said applies to VP8 being developed outside of the H.264 process standard. Why is Nokia in a strong position and On2/Google not?

Reply Parent Score: 4