3 ms·

The super high quality stuff will take an extra minute or two to download, but you won't have to pay a licensing fee for it. I'm not so sure about that. Yester

by javanix 16y ago

The super high quality stuff will take an extra minute or two to download, but you won't have to pay a licensing fee for it. I'm not so sure about that. Yesterday's analysis seemed to predict some questionable usage of H.264 bits in the encoder.

jrockway 16y ago
If that turns out to be the case, then everyone should go back to H.264. But honestly, I have a feeling that Google looked into this before they decided to use it for YouTube. Remember that patents cover exactly what they describe, not things similar to what they describe. Google could always also just buy the patent, if it turns out to be a problem. Basically, I am not ready to dismiss this yet. I trust Google's legal team over one H.264 programmer.
- av500 16y ago
  So far the only thing Google said is "they are very confident" which legally means nothing. They are not going to indemnify everybody that gets sued over VP8, are they?
  - SADASDSAD 16y ago
    you think google is some awekward geek in corner of your class saying "I am confident" while picking his nose? People here need to get a life, no one is stupid enough to spend 100M$ for some copy paste C code! And you have 3 Up Votes!! has HN turned into a zoo of code monkey listening to only their kind and thinking everyone at Google is a stupid???
- SADASDSAD 16y ago
  Wow i fail to understand why you were down voted! Is HN new place to spread FUD? Just because some bumpkin developer comments that code is similar to H.264 does not makes it an infringement. Also a company like Google which has thousand times smarter engineers should have surely thought about it before spendin ~125M$ People here are going bonkers over some comment by naive code monkey. Maybe google has patents enough to coerce MPEGL LA! who knows, but spreading FUD is bad. Esp when you are a naive code monkey!

3 ms·

The super high quality stuff will take an extra minute or two to download, but you won't have to pay a licensing fee for it. I'm not so sure about that. Yester

by javanix 16y ago

jrockway 16y ago
If that turns out to be the case, then everyone should go back to H.264. But honestly, I have a feeling that Google looked into this before they decided to use it for YouTube. Remember that patents cover exactly what they describe, not things similar to what they describe. Google could always also just buy the patent, if it turns out to be a problem. Basically, I am not ready to dismiss this yet. I trust Google's legal team over one H.264 programmer.
- av500 16y ago
  So far the only thing Google said is "they are very confident" which legally means nothing. They are not going to indemnify everybody that gets sued over VP8, are they?
  - SADASDSAD 16y ago
    you think google is some awekward geek in corner of your class saying "I am confident" while picking his nose? People here need to get a life, no one is stupid enough to spend 100M$ for some copy paste C code! And you have 3 Up Votes!! has HN turned into a zoo of code monkey listening to only their kind and thinking everyone at Google is a stupid???
- SADASDSAD 16y ago
  Wow i fail to understand why you were down voted! Is HN new place to spread FUD? Just because some bumpkin developer comments that code is similar to H.264 does not makes it an infringement. Also a company like Google which has thousand times smarter engineers should have surely thought about it before spendin ~125M$ People here are going bonkers over some comment by naive code monkey. Maybe google has patents enough to coerce MPEGL LA! who knows, but spreading FUD is bad. Esp when you are a naive code monkey!