Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 6th Aug 2013 12:05 UTC
Legal Good news:

Today a court in Mannheim, Germany, ruled that VP8 does not infringe a patent owned and asserted by Nokia. This decision is an important and positive step towards the WebM Project's ultimate goal: ensuring the web community has an open, high-quality, freely licensed video codec. Google's intervention in the underlying lawsuit (Nokia v. HTC) was a strong show of support for open standards like VP8.

I guess they'll have to dig out another patent somewhere to try and undermine Android, since Nokia isn't having much luck competing with Android by, you know, actually selling stuff. How the mighty have fallen, huh?

Thread beginning with comment 568977
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

I believe they claim VP8 infringes on video patents. Nokia has products that do video (calls).

Reply Parent Score: 5

lemur2 Member since:

I believe they claim VP8 infringes on video patents.

The claim and the reality are entirely different things, as we have already seen. MPEG LA (who do actually represent competing codecs that are used in cross-platfrom video calling) tried this already, and failed. Only then did Nokia pipe up, and Nokia too have now failed at their first attempt.

So Nokia have scurried around and now have had a second attempt at this claim, now with their lesser-likely patents.

You really, really think there is likely to be any claim of substance this time around?


Reply Parent Score: 1

Lennie Member since:

It doesn't matter if they are right in court.

MPEG-LA and Nokia just want to keep them in court as long as possible and try every trick they can.

What matters is they delay VP8 adoption and have a chance at winning.

Why do you think Nokia waited until the other thing got settled ?

If it works they'll be really happy and can continue their H.264 (and older and newer) licensing tricks.

They will also delay the IETF process in the RTCWeb working group which deals with the mandatory video codecs in WebRTC.

Microsoft wants to support some form of WebRTC, but would really not like to support VP8 in their browser.

Apple also wouldn't want to be forced to include VP8, but they are, like usual, mostly quiet about their plans.

Edited 2013-08-07 08:20 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6