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 556746
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Here we go again
by viton on Tue 26th Mar 2013 19:03 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Here we go again"
Member since:

Do you have any idea how expensive it is to write software that is knowingly free of patent issues???
I was under impression VP8 guys doing exactly that.

You make it sound like people doing OSS are just running around intentionally trampling on patents like gleeful children.
You may try to argue with ReactOS troll about "stolen art".

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Here we go again
by galvanash on Tue 26th Mar 2013 19:40 in reply to "RE[5]: Here we go again"
galvanash Member since:

Do you have any idea how expensive it is to write software that is knowingly free of patent issues???

I was under impression VP8 guys doing exactly that.

Thats my point exactly. Google can afford it - a small OSS project with no corporate backing cannot and shouldn't even be expected to.

You may try to argue with ReactOS troll about "stolen art".

I never said I agreed with him. He is perfectly entitled to his conflicted viewpoint as far as I am concerned, Im not defending it... Im just saying that picking on him for not doing a full patent clearance on small, community driven OSS project is over the top - no one else does either.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[7]: Here we go again
by cpiral on Wed 27th Mar 2013 08:59 in reply to "RE[6]: Here we go again"
cpiral Member since:

Long and happy, the sun gobbled up 98.86% of the matter. Now we revolve around its huge gravity and raging power. Corporate finance is that sun.

The original starring roles probably channeled moral energies to the willing of the construction of civilization. We do not worship the sun, do we?

Heirs naturally fail to appreciate. They too could contribute to an exponential drive, but can get lazy and abuse even each other.

The best financiers must unnaturally worry that the algorithm needs to be reinvented. Does one say that that judgement (reinvention) is unlikely to flow because of money?
Yes, and there any healthy carpenters with tools who refuse to work. Controlled breeding actually constructs things.

But patents cannot stop or otherwise control the romance of the find, the harem warehousing, and the reuse of algorithms or OS's in any recent information age, and for this reason the corporate or other financiers who advise to cause what Thom wrote is ("cost" free, and free libertarian "marketing") happening are reason alone to despise the outrageous competition between Jones's whose "discernment" will radiate the reward that Thom feels are gamma-rays, unlike any gentle yellow-dwarf of a sun ever worshipped.

It costs the original starring company money to 1) organize, 2) pay the coders, 3) decide which code is truly unique, 4) apply for patent. The patents are then (assumably) rightly rewarded, and the financial investment is (rightly?) rewarded. That is all previous money.

Where is the problem we perceive as stoppage of flow?
Coders should be paid like Wall Street physics doctorates? We do not worship coders do we? Yet they are the true (if Marxian) masters aren't they? (Recent information ages are for thought, and is that food to?) One cannot stop or otherwise control the love of computing or OS's, or money, so when is the full flavor a mix of flavors? Which financial intermediaries who broker what? Protection? Information? Protection of information? Protection against processes?

There probably should be one large monetary reward for each improvement of an algorithm for each deemed homo-faber type person and helpmates, and none for pure echolalia. Then one does evolve a sort of Stepanovian/Stroustrupian maximum, understood or cared by only a few human financier beings.

Reply Parent Score: 2