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 555097
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Mon 11th Mar 2013 13:10 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

Obviously there's an impasse. I do think its progress I can at least get some people to agree that the patent fears against VP8 are real. Even if they kicked and screamed the entire way.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by Nelson
by Vanders on Tue 12th Mar 2013 10:44 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Nelson"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

Obviously there's an impasse. I do think its progress I can at least get some people to agree that the patent fears against VP8 are real. Even if they kicked and screamed the entire way.


I have no problem with you doing that, but at least be honest and get them to agree that the situation applies equally to H264.

The way you're trying to tell things it's as if H264 is whiter than white and VP8 is lurking in the shadows murdering children and stealing everyone else's IP. You're so unbalanced on the subject it's verging on trolling.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Thu 14th Mar 2013 02:25 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


I have no problem with you doing that, but at least be honest and get them to agree that the situation applies equally to H264.

The way you're trying to tell things it's as if H264 is whiter than white and VP8 is lurking in the shadows murdering children and stealing everyone else's IP. You're so unbalanced on the subject it's verging on trolling.


I've stated numerous times in the comment that I believe H264 are on similar grounds with regards to patent threats, with the exception of a few key things, mainly being that VP8 wasn't developed in the open, and as a result software essential patents are less in number (but mitigated a bit by non aggression pact of the WebM members which someone rightly pointed out)

I don't think its unfair to take this position. While some of my comments may be misconstrued as overly supporting H264, I really do not care which format wins out in the end. The only thing I did have a problem with was with people claiming VP8 was immune to patent litigation because Google had a license to all the relevant patents. That was obviously absurd on its face.

I also point out ways that Google could mitigate this, especially with indemnification. That would give it a leg up on H264 and the MPEG LA, and they could truly say that they are safer.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by Nelson
by segedunum on Wed 13th Mar 2013 13:03 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Nelson"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Obviously there's an impasse. I do think its progress I can at least get some people to agree that the patent fears against VP8 are real.

They might have been real some time ago - and all that was based on hearsay that no one within the MPEG-LA would back up. Those fears are utterly discredited now, a fact you don't seem to be getting for reasons that escape me.

Reply Parent Score: 3