4 ms·
Guessing (maybe generously?) at OP's meaning, claims were made in the past about VP8 being royalty free etc, and that turned out to be wrong. It's not clear ho
by Twirrim 9y ago
Guessing (maybe generously?) at OP's meaning, claims were made in the past about VP8 being royalty free etc, and that turned out to be wrong. It's not clear how much we can trust them this time around.
http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/News/-76781.aspx http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/News/-76781.aspx
http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/an-analysis-of-webm-and-its-patent-risk/ http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/an-analysis-of-webm-and-its-p...
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/patent-clouds-remain-over-vp8-google.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/patent-clouds-remain-over...
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/next-patent-infringement-trial-over.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/next-patent-infringement-...
- shmerl 9y agoAll of those are quite old sources, and patent claims were refuted. Is there anything newer?
- Twirrim 9y agohttps://www.zdnet.com/article/google-and-mpeg-la-settle-long-running-vp8h-264-patent-dispute/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-and-mpeg-la-settle-long... So far as I can see, that's the final state. Google ended up having to get a license from the MPEG-LA VP8 patent pool.
- magicalist 9y agofrom your link: > Google's Serge Lachapelle notes that today's agreement is "not an acknowledgment" that VP8 infringes on any of the patents claimed by MPEG LA https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06631.html https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg0663...
- shmerl 9y agoBad for Google, but it's not a proof that they require a license. The court didn't rule on it, so it just shows that they didn't want to fight the troll further.
- sofaofthedamned 9y agoThere is nothing in there that asserts your claim about VP8 being encumbered by royalties/patents.