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 556702
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Here we go again
by Radio on Tue 26th Mar 2013 15:12 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Here we go again"
Radio
Member since:
2009-06-20

Does that count as enforcement?

If they change the codec to VP8/9 only and make themselves incompatible with existing browsers and devices, aren't they just hurting themselves? Are they blocking the way for other browser makers to implement VP8/9 or extract a levy from them?

If they put it in Android and Chrome, why would it be "enforcement"?

H.264 has been enforced. I never had the choice, no public certification commitee has been consulted, and nobody should have been able to implement it freely - until the MPEG-LA suddenly came out to declare it free to use for usual folks* (*conditions apply).

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Here we go again
by lucas_maximus on Tue 26th Mar 2013 20:48 in reply to "RE[7]: Here we go again"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Does that count as enforcement?

If they change the codec to VP8/9 only and make themselves incompatible with existing browsers and devices, aren't they just hurting themselves? Are they blocking the way for other browser makers to implement VP8/9 or extract a levy from them?

If they put it in Android and Chrome, why would it be "enforcement"?


When you have the second most popular desktop browser, the most popular mobile phone platform (maybe) and the most popular video site on the net ... umm if this was Microsoft I would say the sentiments would be skewed the other way.

H.264 has been enforced. I never had the choice, no public certification commitee has been consulted, and nobody should have been able to implement it freely - until the MPEG-LA suddenly came out to declare it free to use for usual folks* (*conditions apply).


It the better codec, in every single way.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[9]: Here we go again
by Radio on Wed 27th Mar 2013 07:19 in reply to "RE[8]: Here we go again"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

When you have the second most popular desktop browser, the most popular mobile phone platform (maybe) and the most popular video site on the net ... umm if this was Microsoft I would say the sentiments would be skewed the other way.

Microsoft did not have "the second most popular browser"... What is so difficult to understand in the definition of monopoly? Soon you'll tell us that a 25% market share is a monopoly!

and if it was Microsoft... They would try to impose their proprietary technology, tied with Windows, and different from W3C standards. Which is what the MPEG-LA/Nokia is doing, and the opposite of what Google is doing.

It is hard to be more wrong than you are, but damn you're trying.

Reply Parent Score: 1