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 556664
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Nokia's patents
by lucas_maximus on Tue 26th Mar 2013 12:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Nokia's patents"
Member since:

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

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

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

RE[3]: Nokia's patents
by Thaylin on Tue 26th Mar 2013 14:49 in reply to "RE[2]: Nokia's patents"
Thaylin Member since:

Why would any of the past companies try to fool the standards body? Also you cant lookup patents on wikipedia typically.

Reply Parent Score: 1