5 ms·

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 th

by 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?

by po 16y ago

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?