3 ms·
> (...) and is unlikely to remain royalty-free (...) The argument that there may be lurking patent issues in WebM doesn't carry a lot of weight, I think, unles
by tvon 16y ago
> (...) and is unlikely to remain royalty-free (...)
The argument that there may be lurking patent issues in WebM doesn't carry a lot of weight, I think, unless they are actually demonstrated. After all, couldn't you say that about absolutely any software?
- Locke1689 16y agoCiting from Jason's article that you obviously didn't take the time to read: "With regard to patents, VP8 copies too much from H.264 for comfort, no matter whose word is behind the claim of being patent-free. This doesn’t mean that it’s sure to be covered by patents, but until Google can give us evidence as to why it isn’t, I would be cautious."
- tvon 16y agoI'm not sure what you think is in those sentences that amounts to a verified patent infringement of some kind. You would think though that in the ~8 months since Jason wrote this some kind of specific claim might have surfaced? I'm not at all convinced WebM doesn't have patent issues, but I'm certainly not going to assume it does have patent issues because someone said it might have patent issues. Also, for what it's worth, the burden of proof is not on Google, that's not how patents work.
- sid0 16y agoI really don't know much about this, but I understand that VP8 was designed to deliberately avoid patents. (Thus some of the weird decisions Dark_Shikari comments on.)
- Locke1689 16y agoYou would think though that in the ~8 months since Jason wrote this some kind of specific claim might have surfaced? Nope. Personally I would wait until it's too late for the major players to back out before I make a patent claim. There's no 'statute of limitations' on patent claims. Laches may make things a tad more difficult but holding off until the actual specification is in use would probably hold up. I'm not at all convinced WebM doesn't have patent issues, but I'm certainly not going to assume it does have patent issues because someone said it might have patent issues. As Jason said in his article (and he's probably in one of the best positions to judge technical ingenuity in this area), it's very likely that it does have patent issues. That's not someone saying it might have patent issues, that's someone saying it probably does. Also, for what it's worth, the burden of proof is not on Google, that's not how patents work. In court. We're not in court. The claim is being made that we should use WebM mostly because it isn't patent encumbered (certainly not for technical reasons). This is a claim that Google should defend. Without support for this statement there's no reason to use WebM instead of H264.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- Waywocket 16y agoThat's simply a truism. There is no piece of software for which this isn't true. Everything, to a first approximation, violates some patent somewhere. Until somebody cowboys up and actually sues for infringement, this is purely scaremongering. That's one of the greatest evils of patents - their use as a weapon of terror.
- Blend 16y agoYup. And the reason most of the software violate patents is because of the pathetic "common sense" patents being granted in the first place.