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 555035
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by Vanders on Sun 10th Mar 2013 23:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
Vanders
Member since:
2005-07-06

What does matter is VP8 proponents claiming that VP8 is magically safer.


No one is claiming that and no one has ever claimed that,

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.


Except that's wrong.

Until last week people were quick to claim that VP8 was "unsafe" (hell, even Apple made this claim). There were plenty of people asking why Google wouldn't indemnify VP8 users yet completely ignoring the fact that MPEG-LA didn't indemnify H.264 licensor's.

The double standard was hilarious at the time, now it's just pathetic.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Mon 11th Mar 2013 04:41 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


No one is claiming that and no one has ever claimed that,


Yes. The general talking point was that WebM had all the relevant patents already, so it wasn't a legal minefield.

Quite obviously that isn't true.


Except that's wrong.

Until last week people were quick to claim that VP8 was "unsafe" (hell, even Apple made this claim). There were plenty of people asking why Google wouldn't indemnify VP8 users yet completely ignoring the fact that MPEG-LA didn't indemnify H.264 licensor's.


The idemnification was only brought up because Google claimed they owned all relevant patents. Critics argued that if they did, they'd have no problem indemnifying their partners and sub licensees.


The double standard was hilarious at the time, now it's just pathetic.


H264 was developed using a standard setting process, which yielded a lot of disclosure about relevant patents, and in turn H264 is covered in SEPs.

In addition to this, the MPEG LA is a patent pool which facilitates the relatively inexpensive licensing of a bunch of patents related to H264.

VP8 has neither of these, so the situation is much more dire. A person willing to license all of the potential VP8 patents will need to sink a lot of money if a number of people start coming forward (as Nokia has).

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by Nelson
by Vanders on Mon 11th Mar 2013 11:36 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Nelson"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

H264 was developed using a standard setting process, which yielded a lot of disclosure about relevant patents, and in turn H264 is covered in SEPs.

In addition to this, the MPEG LA is a patent pool which facilitates the relatively inexpensive licensing of a bunch of patents related to H264.

VP8 has neither of these, so the situation is much more dire. A person willing to license all of the potential VP8 patents will need to sink a lot of money if a number of people start coming forward (as Nokia has).


What a complete load of absolute rubbish. The situation for submarine patents is identical for both VP8 and H.264.

Reply Parent Score: 3