Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 25th Mar 2013 21:09 UTC
Legal Late last week, Nokia dropped what many consider to be a bomb on the WebM project: a list of patents that VP8 supposedly infringes in the form of an IETF IPR declaration. The list has made the rounds around the web, often reported as proof that VP8 infringes upon Nokia's patents. All this stuff rang a bell. Haven't we been here before? Yup, we have, with another open source codec called Opus. Qualcomm and Huawei made the same claims as Nokia did, but they turned out to be complete bogus. As it turns out, this is standard practice in the dirty business of the patent licensing industry.
Thread beginning with comment 556600
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Nokia's patents
by bowkota on Mon 25th Mar 2013 22:31 UTC
bowkota
Member since:
2011-10-12

Contrary to the other companies named in your article, Nokia win's most of it's patent battles, i.e. they know when they're right.

I'm not gonna bother with your wall of text, big rant/propaganda as usual and even when you get refuted on the subject, you refuse to answer.

Also I don't see how Nokia's statement is relevant to the fact that Mueller is an advisor to Oracle/MS (something he publicly discloses).

Reply Score: 2

v RE: Nokia's patents
by lucas_maximus on Mon 25th Mar 2013 22:37 in reply to "Nokia's patents"
RE[2]: Nokia's patents
by bowkota on Mon 25th Mar 2013 22:54 in reply to "RE: Nokia's patents"
bowkota Member since:
2011-10-12

My favourite recently was the Google coming to a deal with MPEG-LA ... and somehow Thom thought it was a win for Google.


Everyone is entitled to their opinion but he shouldn't be judging people like Mueller when he (along with Groklaw, yes the site that is consistently bias towards Google, among other things, http://linux-blog.org/Disagreements-+-Groklaw-Deletion/) is at the other end of the spectrum.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE: Nokia's patents
by Valhalla on Tue 26th Mar 2013 08:16 in reply to "Nokia's patents"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

Contrary to the other companies named in your article, Nokia win's most of it's patent battles, i.e. they know when they're right.


Really? Like when they claimed Ogg was proprietary (same lie as they are making here concering vp8):

http://boingboing.net/2007/12/09/nokia-to-w3c-ogg-is.html

Also I don't see how Nokia's statement is relevant to the fact that Mueller is an advisor to Oracle/MS (something he publicly discloses).

He 'came out' quite late which was likely due to him being about to be exposed.

Before that he pretended to be an independant observer of software patents, something few if anyone believed as his reporting was so incredibly anti-Google slanted.

Reply Parent Score: 12

RE[2]: Nokia's patents
by lucas_maximus on Tue 26th Mar 2013 12:46 in reply to "RE: Nokia's patents"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Really? Like when they claimed Ogg was proprietary (same lie as they are making here concering vp8):

http://boingboing.net/2007/12/09/nokia-to-w3c-ogg-is.html


Actually while nokia said that it is massively over-quoted considering the rest of the PDF link

http://www.w3.org/2007/08/video/positions/Nokia.pdf

Considering our requirements, we believe the widespread use of technically competitive, but not necessarily “free” open standards, such as H.264 for video and AAC for audio, would serve the community best. This would be fully aligned with the business model dominant in the digital video ecosystem.

As a major device manufacturer, we obviously prefer cheaper solutions. Therefore, Nokia has, in the past, supported initiatives in committees such as MPEG towards royalty-free standards (which unfortunately were not fully successful). We are actively considering making more such attempts, and W3C’s considerable evangelization power could be directed towards a similar use. Options for W3C include enhanced liaison activity towards bodies such as MPEG and the ITU-T in order to launch projects closer to W3C’s view on IPR, suggesting tighter company- internal coordination in those companies which contribute to both “ecosystems”, and so on.

Anything beyond that, including a W3C-lead standardization of a “free” codec, or the active endorsement of proprietary technology such as Ogg, …, by W3C, is, in our opinion, not helpful for the co-existence of the two ecosystems (web and video), and therefore not our choice.


Firstly, the proprietary bit isn't really relevant to patents what-so-ever. So I don't know why you are bringing it up.

I also think it is actually a cock-up ... you can replace proprietary with "existing" , though I would agree with you I am reaching a bit with that.

However when you read it in context with the full block of text you can see where they are going with their argument. Also why would they bother trying to fool a technical standards body, when it can be looked up on wikipedia?

Also Ogg isn't a codec it is a container format ... so what this has to do with a set of patents on VP8 is a codec?

Edited 2013-03-26 12:55 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3