6 ms·

Patent Troll Larry Horn of MPEG-LA Assembling VP8 Patent Pool

68 points by silkodyssey 16y ago

po 16y ago
Surely, Google saw this coming. What I want to know is what is Google's strategy here? They are not indemnifying VP8 adopters. Technology flaws aside, how do they expect anyone to take up VP8? I feel like it's a sacrificial pawn in some other strategy.
- silkodyssey 16y ago
  Google has stated that they are already using vp8 on youtube so I guess this may be part of their strategy. Youtube is a big target and if they don't have patent troubles then this may ease the concerns of other users. Alternatively if Youtube is taken to court then the ruling would settle the dispute once and for all.
- lurch_mojoff 16y ago
  Google's issue with h.264 is that they are not part of MPEG LA. They don't have a say on licensing fees or terms and as result it becomes theoretically possible for the companies part of MPEG LA (amongst which are Apple and Microsoft, direct competitors to Google) to fuck'em over. That happening is extremely unlikely, if not outright impossible, but google could be playing it extra safe. How will this pan out I have no idea, but the closest thing to a resolution that I see is Google will try to make MPEG adopt VP8 or the whole WebM in some way and join MPEG LA. Of course they could be hoping to fight the patent allegations and not lose, but I doubt that Google have become so carelessly cocky.
  - noibl 16y ago
    I think it's even simpler than that. MPEG-LA is basically a cartel. Google has consistently demonstrated that it considers monopolies and cartels that slow down the technological development of the web or create technological bottlenecks for web developers to be its 'problem'.
- DrSprout 16y ago
  They don't have to indemnify VP8 adopters. VP8 is only patent-free if you agree not to do what MPEG is doing. And while it may be true that MPEG holds some patents that apply to VP8, Google clearly holds some patents that apply to H.264 (because this is a huge mess.) So they can sue, but it will be an ugly battle, and unlikely to finish before the H.264 patents expire. It's really not a good idea.
  - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
    >it may be true that MPEG holds some patents that apply to VP8, Google clearly holds some patents that apply to H.264 (because this is a huge mess.) I presume you mean MPEG-LA hold patents over VP8? Which? Also if the reverse is true, why aren't Google having MPEG-LA pay them license fees? Or, perhaps that is what's going to fall out of all this now. In any case I think all of this clearly shows that the MPEG-LA are all about controlling the web and squeezing every cent out of it possible contrary to their apparently lax attitude [until 2012].
    - DrSprout 16y ago
      Basically yeah, I'm saying that this is a mutually assured destruction situation. Google having MPEG pay them license fees would validate an MPEG lawsuit against VP8 users. On the other hand, if MPEG decides to sue, Google will do a counter-claim, refuse to settle, and the thing could easily be tied up in courts until all the relevant patents have expired.
  - ethermeme 16y ago
    MPEG-LA should just ask Google for half the money they're going to spend this year on development, YouTube conversion, marketing and legal defense for VP8, distribute the windfall to the companies in their patent pool, and submit H.264 to SMPTE or IEEE. Everyone gets a free, high-quality codec, the patent pool gets a big buyout, and Google saves a lot of time and money. It's hard to imagine them actually doing that, though.
- mikeryan 16y ago
  Really there's no way around this without a fight and without spending some serious money. Google (in particular YouTube) has 2 options. 1. Pay to license h.264 (or some other proprietary codec) 2. Release alternative and competing codec and do battle in the court room. Both options were going to require spending money so they're going with route 2 which is likely the better long term option. There's also a good chance they can get some other heavyweights to back them in support.
  - roc 16y ago
    Actually they went with "all of the above". All that h264 youtube video, as well as the h264 support in Chrome and Android aren't going anywhere. Google is playing for control. Likeliest outcome of VP8 being found infringing is some cross-licensing deal and new patent pool with Google as major stakeholder. They would thus have significant control over the resulting VP8 license costs vs being "just a customer" to the h264 group. Having a compete product thus acts as a powerful check on h264 licensing too. Google is simply trying to ensure that its business isn't held hostage by someone else. Either they win and no-one controls video, or they 'lose' and Google at least gets a hand on the wheel.
- vetinari 16y ago
  Read the webm license. If you launch or join attack against VP8, either directly or by proxy, for next 20 years (or however long it takes to VP8 patents to expire) you cannot ship anything that wants to play VP8 video. For most H.264 patent holders (not MPEG-LA, think Hitachi, LG, Panasonic, Samsung, Sony, Toshiba...) that could be a problem, if VP8 is successful. Would you want to be CE producer and unable to play Youtube?
mambodog 16y ago
The article repeats itself a fair bit, doesn't it?
mdasen 16y ago
If you read the license for VP8, it specifies that you get a royalty-free patent license for anything Google owns or has the right to license to you free of charge for any of the technologies that VP8 uses. However, that license is instantly revoked if you take any action against a VP8 user. I'm guessing that On2 might have a patent library to potentially defend against MPEG-LA. I'm guessing that Google had highly qualified patent attorneys go over VP8 before buying On2 (and Google's Mike Jazayeri says, "We have done a pretty thorough analysis of VP8 and On2 Technologies prior to the acquisition"). VP8 is a huge threat to H.264. Microsoft, Google, Mozilla, and Opera have instantly committed to it for HTML5 video. If MPEG-LA fails against it, Apple will likely come on board as well since it's an open technology (vs. Flash which is closed) and the fact that chip makers look like they'll implement it (Broadcomm has already committed for its mobile chips). So, MPEG-LA is clearly going to fight against it. Theora was more of a curiosity (no offense intended)* - an older video codec (based on VP3, IIRC) that didn't have the support of major companies or chipset makers. VP8 is being pushed hard by heavyweights. Google is not indemnifying users of VP8, but they're going to defend it. I'm sure Google has a decent patent library that they'd be more than happy to use to strike against not just MPEG-LA, but also its constituent members. It's important to remember that a corporation is made up of shareholders. If Google has a patent that many shareholders infringe on, they can strike at those shareholders to get them to pressure MPEG-LA not to go after VP8. Shareholders ultimately control companies including MPEG-LA. I'm sure Google could make life more difficult for those shareholders. *The Theora developers have done an awesome job, but they're working from a base specification that's, well, old.
- IgorPartola 16y ago
  I think the more important thing is that nobody is supporting Theora. If the difference is "expensive, but takes 10% less storage once encoded" vs "free, but needs more storage", I think the choice is obvious. The bigger problem is that at this moment there is almost no device or browser I can play a Theora video on.
- Mgreen 16y ago
  -vs. Flash which is closed. Flash Player is not completely open sourced, because of H264( the patent pool of which, Apple is part of). Adobe pays the licensing fee for using H264 . Adobe has released enough code and specification to let anyone build a flash playing software. Completely open sourcing Flash Player wont be possible unless H264 is open and patent free. So if Apple really wants, they can build their own Flash Player without Adobe's approval. src: http://blogs.adobe.com/open/2010/02/following_the_open_trail.html http://blogs.adobe.com/open/2010/02/following_the_open_trail...
bcl 16y ago
Good. Better to get this all resolved now so we can move on and start spreading this to every corner of the net and mobile device. I have no doubt that Google was anticipating this and are ready to deal with it.
Qz 16y ago
"Yes," Horn answered, "In view of the marketplace uncertainties regarding patent licensing needs for such technologies, there have been expressions of interest from the market urging us to facilitate formation of licenses that would address the market's need for a convenient one-stop marketplace alternative to negotiating separate licenses with individual patent holders in accessing essential patent rights for VP8 as well as other codecs, and we are looking into the prospects of doing so." I'll give the guy one thing -- he speaks good run-on.
protomyth 16y ago
The funny thing is that the MPEG-LA could have taken a much different strategy and had all the money to themselves. If they had only charged a fee for hardware devices, no one really would have cared.
Hoff 16y ago
There's nothing really all that interesting here until this mess gets hashed out in the courts; it's all academic (and legal) for now. Nobody (that matters) is going to aggressively move to VP8 prior to that; you'll get the usual lip service. Or you'll get ignored. Or both. Until there's some standing and some idea of the patent landscape, any commercial entity (with money to move forward, which is also money to lose in a patent tussle) will be making an investment that may get the company either nowhere, or sued. If it proves unencumbered, VP8 would put a ceiling on MPEG-LA and H.264, and thus the patent holders will undoubted get to tussle this in court. If encumbered, you'll either pay or you'll be blocked depending on what the patent holder(s) want. Apple has H.264 in hardware. They'll either ignore VP8, or it'll take multiple replacement cycles or a software work-around to get a new CODEC out. And given that Apple already has H.264, they'll likely be disinclined just because VP8 is not Better Enough to warrant the migration effort. Either way the tussle ends, we'll know VP8 is in the clear or not. Odds are that there are patents. But until the legal tussles end and the CODEC is unencumbered or encumbered and licensed, it's all academic.
jheriko 16y ago
If we would just all collectively stop tolerating this crap and treat it with the contempt it deserves then patents would disappear.
kilps 16y ago
If it is true that it is impossible to create a video codec which doesn't infringe on existing patents then surely it is impossible for anybody to argue that there isn't something wrong with the patent system? My understanding is that the idea is to force innovation to find new ways of getting things done, not preventing them from happening all together. A compressed video file must be obvious enough for the concept itself not to be subject to patents.

68 points by silkodyssey 16y ago

po 16y ago

Surely, Google saw this coming. What I want to know is what is Google's strategy here? They are not indemnifying VP8 adopters. Technology flaws aside, how do they expect anyone to take up VP8? I feel like it's a sacrificial pawn in some other strategy.

silkodyssey 16y ago
Google has stated that they are already using vp8 on youtube so I guess this may be part of their strategy. Youtube is a big target and if they don't have patent troubles then this may ease the concerns of other users. Alternatively if Youtube is taken to court then the ruling would settle the dispute once and for all.
lurch_mojoff 16y ago
Google's issue with h.264 is that they are not part of MPEG LA. They don't have a say on licensing fees or terms and as result it becomes theoretically possible for the companies part of MPEG LA (amongst which are Apple and Microsoft, direct competitors to Google) to fuck'em over. That happening is extremely unlikely, if not outright impossible, but google could be playing it extra safe. How will this pan out I have no idea, but the closest thing to a resolution that I see is Google will try to make MPEG adopt VP8 or the whole WebM in some way and join MPEG LA. Of course they could be hoping to fight the patent allegations and not lose, but I doubt that Google have become so carelessly cocky.
- noibl 16y ago
  I think it's even simpler than that. MPEG-LA is basically a cartel. Google has consistently demonstrated that it considers monopolies and cartels that slow down the technological development of the web or create technological bottlenecks for web developers to be its 'problem'.
DrSprout 16y ago
They don't have to indemnify VP8 adopters. VP8 is only patent-free if you agree not to do what MPEG is doing. And while it may be true that MPEG holds some patents that apply to VP8, Google clearly holds some patents that apply to H.264 (because this is a huge mess.) So they can sue, but it will be an ugly battle, and unlikely to finish before the H.264 patents expire. It's really not a good idea.
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago
  >it may be true that MPEG holds some patents that apply to VP8, Google clearly holds some patents that apply to H.264 (because this is a huge mess.) I presume you mean MPEG-LA hold patents over VP8? Which? Also if the reverse is true, why aren't Google having MPEG-LA pay them license fees? Or, perhaps that is what's going to fall out of all this now. In any case I think all of this clearly shows that the MPEG-LA are all about controlling the web and squeezing every cent out of it possible contrary to their apparently lax attitude [until 2012].
  - DrSprout 16y ago
    Basically yeah, I'm saying that this is a mutually assured destruction situation. Google having MPEG pay them license fees would validate an MPEG lawsuit against VP8 users. On the other hand, if MPEG decides to sue, Google will do a counter-claim, refuse to settle, and the thing could easily be tied up in courts until all the relevant patents have expired.
- ethermeme 16y ago
  MPEG-LA should just ask Google for half the money they're going to spend this year on development, YouTube conversion, marketing and legal defense for VP8, distribute the windfall to the companies in their patent pool, and submit H.264 to SMPTE or IEEE. Everyone gets a free, high-quality codec, the patent pool gets a big buyout, and Google saves a lot of time and money. It's hard to imagine them actually doing that, though.
mikeryan 16y ago
Really there's no way around this without a fight and without spending some serious money. Google (in particular YouTube) has 2 options. 1. Pay to license h.264 (or some other proprietary codec) 2. Release alternative and competing codec and do battle in the court room. Both options were going to require spending money so they're going with route 2 which is likely the better long term option. There's also a good chance they can get some other heavyweights to back them in support.
- roc 16y ago
  Actually they went with "all of the above". All that h264 youtube video, as well as the h264 support in Chrome and Android aren't going anywhere. Google is playing for control. Likeliest outcome of VP8 being found infringing is some cross-licensing deal and new patent pool with Google as major stakeholder. They would thus have significant control over the resulting VP8 license costs vs being "just a customer" to the h264 group. Having a compete product thus acts as a powerful check on h264 licensing too. Google is simply trying to ensure that its business isn't held hostage by someone else. Either they win and no-one controls video, or they 'lose' and Google at least gets a hand on the wheel.
vetinari 16y ago
Read the webm license. If you launch or join attack against VP8, either directly or by proxy, for next 20 years (or however long it takes to VP8 patents to expire) you cannot ship anything that wants to play VP8 video. For most H.264 patent holders (not MPEG-LA, think Hitachi, LG, Panasonic, Samsung, Sony, Toshiba...) that could be a problem, if VP8 is successful. Would you want to be CE producer and unable to play Youtube?

mambodog 16y ago

The article repeats itself a fair bit, doesn't it?

mdasen 16y ago

If you read the license for VP8, it specifies that you get a royalty-free patent license for anything Google owns or has the right to license to you free of charge for any of the technologies that VP8 uses. However, that license is instantly revoked if you take any action against a VP8 user. I'm guessing that On2 might have a patent library to potentially defend against MPEG-LA. I'm guessing that Google had highly qualified patent attorneys go over VP8 before buying On2 (and Google's Mike Jazayeri says, "We have done a pretty thorough analysis of VP8 and On2 Technologies prior to the acquisition"). VP8 is a huge threat to H.264. Microsoft, Google, Mozilla, and Opera have instantly committed to it for HTML5 video. If MPEG-LA fails against it, Apple will likely come on board as well since it's an open technology (vs. Flash which is closed) and the fact that chip makers look like they'll implement it (Broadcomm has already committed for its mobile chips). So, MPEG-LA is clearly going to fight against it. Theora was more of a curiosity (no offense intended)* - an older video codec (based on VP3, IIRC) that didn't have the support of major companies or chipset makers. VP8 is being pushed hard by heavyweights. Google is not indemnifying users of VP8, but they're going to defend it. I'm sure Google has a decent patent library that they'd be more than happy to use to strike against not just MPEG-LA, but also its constituent members. It's important to remember that a corporation is made up of shareholders. If Google has a patent that many shareholders infringe on, they can strike at those shareholders to get them to pressure MPEG-LA not to go after VP8. Shareholders ultimately control companies including MPEG-LA. I'm sure Google could make life more difficult for those shareholders. *The Theora developers have done an awesome job, but they're working from a base specification that's, well, old.

IgorPartola 16y ago
I think the more important thing is that nobody is supporting Theora. If the difference is "expensive, but takes 10% less storage once encoded" vs "free, but needs more storage", I think the choice is obvious. The bigger problem is that at this moment there is almost no device or browser I can play a Theora video on.
Mgreen 16y ago
-vs. Flash which is closed. Flash Player is not completely open sourced, because of H264( the patent pool of which, Apple is part of). Adobe pays the licensing fee for using H264 . Adobe has released enough code and specification to let anyone build a flash playing software. Completely open sourcing Flash Player wont be possible unless H264 is open and patent free. So if Apple really wants, they can build their own Flash Player without Adobe's approval. src: http://blogs.adobe.com/open/2010/02/following_the_open_trail.html http://blogs.adobe.com/open/2010/02/following_the_open_trail...

bcl 16y ago

Good. Better to get this all resolved now so we can move on and start spreading this to every corner of the net and mobile device. I have no doubt that Google was anticipating this and are ready to deal with it.

Qz 16y ago

"Yes," Horn answered, "In view of the marketplace uncertainties regarding patent licensing needs for such technologies, there have been expressions of interest from the market urging us to facilitate formation of licenses that would address the market's need for a convenient one-stop marketplace alternative to negotiating separate licenses with individual patent holders in accessing essential patent rights for VP8 as well as other codecs, and we are looking into the prospects of doing so." I'll give the guy one thing -- he speaks good run-on.

protomyth 16y ago

The funny thing is that the MPEG-LA could have taken a much different strategy and had all the money to themselves. If they had only charged a fee for hardware devices, no one really would have cared.

Hoff 16y ago

There's nothing really all that interesting here until this mess gets hashed out in the courts; it's all academic (and legal) for now. Nobody (that matters) is going to aggressively move to VP8 prior to that; you'll get the usual lip service. Or you'll get ignored. Or both. Until there's some standing and some idea of the patent landscape, any commercial entity (with money to move forward, which is also money to lose in a patent tussle) will be making an investment that may get the company either nowhere, or sued. If it proves unencumbered, VP8 would put a ceiling on MPEG-LA and H.264, and thus the patent holders will undoubted get to tussle this in court. If encumbered, you'll either pay or you'll be blocked depending on what the patent holder(s) want. Apple has H.264 in hardware. They'll either ignore VP8, or it'll take multiple replacement cycles or a software work-around to get a new CODEC out. And given that Apple already has H.264, they'll likely be disinclined just because VP8 is not Better Enough to warrant the migration effort. Either way the tussle ends, we'll know VP8 is in the clear or not. Odds are that there are patents. But until the legal tussles end and the CODEC is unencumbered or encumbered and licensed, it's all academic.

jheriko 16y ago

If we would just all collectively stop tolerating this crap and treat it with the contempt it deserves then patents would disappear.

kilps 16y ago

If it is true that it is impossible to create a video codec which doesn't infringe on existing patents then surely it is impossible for anybody to argue that there isn't something wrong with the patent system? My understanding is that the idea is to force innovation to find new ways of getting things done, not preventing them from happening all together. A compressed video file must be obvious enough for the concept itself not to be subject to patents.