4 ms·

This 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

by lftl 17y ago

This 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 ago
Ah 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 ago
  What would they counter-sue over?
  - blasdel 17y ago
    They 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 ago
      This, 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 ago
      MPEG-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 ago
  On what grounds? MPEG LA specifically disclaims liability for any patents they don't have in their pool.

by lftl 17y ago

steveklabnik 17y ago

Ah 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 ago
What would they counter-sue over?
- blasdel 17y ago
  They 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 ago
    This, 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 ago
    MPEG-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 ago
On what grounds? MPEG LA specifically disclaims liability for any patents they don't have in their pool.