4 ms·
I'm given to understand that the h.264 format is encumbered by patents from a number of different companies. This makes me wonder if VP8 is similarly confuddled
by lmkg 17y ago
I'm given to understand that the h.264 format is encumbered by patents from a number of different companies. This makes me wonder if VP8 is similarly confuddled. Does On2 own all of the VP8 patents in the clear, or would making the format completely unencumbered require coordination with, and permission from, other companies?
- steveklabnik 17y agoI thought that VP8 was basically On2's secret sauce, and that they had made all of it. From their site: (http://www.on2.com/index.php?599 http://www.on2.com/index.php?599) And with no patent-pool royalty hassles, VP8 licensing terms are flexible and affordable to ensure maximum ROI potential. So, it'd seem like just them.
- lftl 17y agoThis definitely doesn't mean VP8 is free and clear. It just means that On2 doesn't have any patents that they were actively enforcing on VP8. It's quite likely that any number of H.264 or other random patents apply just as well to VP8, especially given the USPTO's penchant for handing out patents that cover even the most basic of ideas. This is Apple's stated reason for refusing to implement Theora. In this vein, it should also be noted that there's no guarantee that licensing H.264 actually covers you for every patent.
- steveklabnik 17y agoAh yes, that "submarine" thing. We really need to get this whole software patent thing taken care of.
- zokier 17y ago>In this vein, it should also be noted that there's no guarantee that licensing H.264 actually covers you for every patent. I'd assume that if someone would be foolish enough to sue a h264 licensee, MPEG-LA (or it's members) would be quick to counter-sue them to oblivion.
- steveklabnik 17y agoWhat would they counter-sue over?
- blasdel 17y agoThey have the nuclear option -- refuse licenses of the in-pool patents to anyone licensing an out-of-pool patent. Most of the patents involved are unusable independently -- you have to license a chain of predecessors. There's a reason why patent owners just join the pool when they discover they're eligible for a nice easy income stream.
- DarkShikari 17y agoThis, by the way, is the reason why even non-litigious companies tend to accumulate huge quantities of patents: they serve as potent weapons against anyone attempting to sue them. Equally, it's why productless patent trolls are so dangerous: since they don't make any products, such patent portfolios are useless as deterrence against them.
- danbmil99 17y agoMPEG-LA can't do that because the pool has a rule of non-discriminatory licensing. That's one of the (flimsy) bases for their antitrust exemption.
- wmf 17y agoOn what grounds? MPEG LA specifically disclaims liability for any patents they don't have in their pool.
- wmf 17y agoMicrosoft said the same thing about WMV and then when they opened the spec a whole bunch of companies discovered that it was infringing their patents and now there's a patent pool around VC-1. OTOH, I'm sure Google has thought about this problem and done some due diligence.