4 ms·

They're probably patenting this to make sure nobody else does, and if Google's track record is any indication, they will probably make this available for free.

kuschku 11y ago
> Make this available for free to anyone who doesn’t sue Google, doesn’t object to patents, etc Fixed this for you. Legally, according to the patent license, I can’t use VP8 (Google) or react (Facebook) either, as I believe the patents, like all software patents, are invalid and should not have been granted.
- magicalist 11y ago
  > Make this available for free to anyone who doesn’t sue Google, doesn’t object to patents, etc > Legally, according to the patent license, I can’t use VP8 (Google) OK, let's see: > If you or your agent or exclusive licensee institute or order or agree to the institution of patent litigation or any other patent enforcement activity against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any of these implementations of WebM or any code incorporated within any of these implementations of WebM constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, or inducement of patent infringement, then any patent rights granted to you under this License for these implementations of WebM shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.[1] Seems upfront to me, and nothing to do with if you sue Google over matters unrelated to VP8, believe software patents are invalid, etc etc. It's just a modified Apache 2.0 patent license grant, so unless you object to all projects under that...? > If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.[2] [1] http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/ http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/ [2] http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
  - kuschku 11y ago
    I object to all current software patents, as I consider the whole process in which they are granted to be inacceptable. So, yes, I can not legally use any project that uses patents and only this grant.
    - cdcarter 11y ago
      Objecting to the concept of software patents doesn't make it illegal for you to use the software.
      - kuschku 11y ago
        Except for the "if the user questions the validity of any Facebook Inc. patents, this license becomes null and void" part...
        raverbashing 11y ago
        It probably means "in court" not just saying "I think software patents should not exist"
        kuschku 11y ago
        Which makes no difference to me. If I can’t say in court "I believe the patent is invalid", then I can’t use the software. It’s not "free" if they require you to believe their political ideas to use it.
        rayiner 11y ago
        "Validity" is a legal term of art in patents. Agreeing not to challenge the validity of the patent means, e.g., that you won't file an IPR seeking invalidation on anticipation grounds. It doesn't require you to subscribe to any set of political beliefs.
        11y ago
rayiner 11y ago
"Patenting it so someone else can't" is just something people say. Publishing the details of the technique would be enough to establish prior art--no need to file a patent. There is such a thing as defensive patenting, but that's more about building up a portfolio of patents in an area so that if someone sues you, you have something to counterclaim with.
- chii 11y ago
  > building up a portfolio of patents in an area so that if someone sues you, you have something to counterclaim with. this is the reason i say patents have become perverse.

kuschku 11y ago

> Make this available for free to anyone who doesn’t sue Google, doesn’t object to patents, etc Fixed this for you. Legally, according to the patent license, I can’t use VP8 (Google) or react (Facebook) either, as I believe the patents, like all software patents, are invalid and should not have been granted.

magicalist 11y ago
> Make this available for free to anyone who doesn’t sue Google, doesn’t object to patents, etc > Legally, according to the patent license, I can’t use VP8 (Google) OK, let's see: > If you or your agent or exclusive licensee institute or order or agree to the institution of patent litigation or any other patent enforcement activity against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any of these implementations of WebM or any code incorporated within any of these implementations of WebM constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, or inducement of patent infringement, then any patent rights granted to you under this License for these implementations of WebM shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.[1] Seems upfront to me, and nothing to do with if you sue Google over matters unrelated to VP8, believe software patents are invalid, etc etc. It's just a modified Apache 2.0 patent license grant, so unless you object to all projects under that...? > If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.[2] [1] http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/ http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/ [2] http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
- kuschku 11y ago
  I object to all current software patents, as I consider the whole process in which they are granted to be inacceptable. So, yes, I can not legally use any project that uses patents and only this grant.
  - cdcarter 11y ago
    Objecting to the concept of software patents doesn't make it illegal for you to use the software.
    - kuschku 11y ago
      Except for the "if the user questions the validity of any Facebook Inc. patents, this license becomes null and void" part...
      - raverbashing 11y ago
        It probably means "in court" not just saying "I think software patents should not exist"
        kuschku 11y ago
        Which makes no difference to me. If I can’t say in court "I believe the patent is invalid", then I can’t use the software. It’s not "free" if they require you to believe their political ideas to use it.
        rayiner 11y ago
        "Validity" is a legal term of art in patents. Agreeing not to challenge the validity of the patent means, e.g., that you won't file an IPR seeking invalidation on anticipation grounds. It doesn't require you to subscribe to any set of political beliefs.
        11y ago

rayiner 11y ago

"Patenting it so someone else can't" is just something people say. Publishing the details of the technique would be enough to establish prior art--no need to file a patent. There is such a thing as defensive patenting, but that's more about building up a portfolio of patents in an area so that if someone sues you, you have something to counterclaim with.

chii 11y ago
> building up a portfolio of patents in an area so that if someone sues you, you have something to counterclaim with. this is the reason i say patents have become perverse.