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 556648
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Big picture...
by Valhalla on Tue 26th Mar 2013 10:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Big picture..."
Valhalla
Member since:
2006-01-24


VP8 is and has been inferior to H.264 in every single way. Performance, power savings, adoption, you name it.

Adoption, obviously given how long h264 has been around. Power savings, I have not seen any comparison between hardware based h264 and vp8, do you have any links? Performance, depends on what you mean by 'performance', decoding/encoding speed? visual quality (here h264 is better due to excellent mature encoders like x264 but certainly not by a wide margin) ?

And it's certainly not inferior in cost.

Good thing VP9 is "open". Look at the endless amount of information on it and the wide spread adoption. Oh no wait, thats H.265 !

Yes it's open, here is the git repository where you can follow the actual development in real-time, modify/build it yourself and use it, send patches, examine the code.

http://git.chromium.org/gitweb/?p=webm/libvpx.git;a=summary

The vp9 spec is not yet finalized but there are design documentation and progress reports:

http://downloads.webmproject.org/ngov2012/pdf/04-ngov-project-updat...

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/slides/slides-85-videocodec-4.pd...

http://downloads.webmproject.org/ngov2012/pdf/02-ngov-product-requi...

What part of your definition of open does this fail to qualify for?

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Big picture...
by moondevil on Tue 26th Mar 2013 12:12 in reply to "RE[2]: Big picture..."
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

What part of your definition of open does this fail to qualify for?


Free from patents.

Until there is a world wide change to patent law, open source software will no longer hold to the dream it once had if the developers can get sued at any given moment.

This is an advantage of commercial software over open source.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Big picture...
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 26th Mar 2013 12:32 in reply to "RE[3]: Big picture..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

This is an advantage of commercial software over open source.


Right, because Microsoft, Apple, and others never get sued over patents on closed source software.

Wait.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Big picture...
by anda_skoa on Tue 26th Mar 2013 12:50 in reply to "RE[3]: Big picture..."
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

This is an advantage of commercial software over open source.


Well, aside from making very little sense of mixing two orthogonal properties in a kind of comparison (one being about productising, the other one being about code licensing), I'd rather say the other way around.

A developer commericializing a patented technology is more likely to be sued by patent holders then one not doing so. Whether the software in question is open source or not doesn't change much.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Big picture...
by Radio on Tue 26th Mar 2013 14:37 in reply to "RE[3]: Big picture..."
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

Until there is a world wide change to patent law, open source software will no longer hold to the dream it once had if the developers can get sued at any given moment.

Yeah, like Opus. The best technical solution, open, but patent-encumbered, as Qualcomm and Huawei claimed rightly so.

Oh, wait.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Big picture...
by Thaylin on Tue 26th Mar 2013 14:40 in reply to "RE[3]: Big picture..."
Thaylin Member since:
2013-03-26

you do realize that being open does not mean free of patents right? There is no open source license that I know of that requires you to not patent anything you discovered.

Reply Parent Score: 1