5 ms·

From the bits and pieces that I have read, there are some very real patent questions still looming. Jason Garett-Glaser put together a great comparison of h.26

From the bits and pieces that I have read, there are some very real patent questions still looming. Jason Garett-Glaser put together a great comparison of h.264 vs VP8/WebM. Check it out here: http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/377 http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/377 His summary: the spec is really terrible, the performance leaves a lot to be desired (though, there is a lot of room for optimization), and it 'copies too much from H.264 for comfort'.

mbrubeck 16y ago
This comment in response to that post makes an interesting point; the most similar bits are likely the most carefully vetted, and may be written deliberately to avoid patent infringement. Patents on standards can be very narrow; as long they cover exactly what's in the spec, then any implementer of the standard still has to pay up: "Patents are about _details_ so the mere fact that something does something like something else, isn’t necessarily something at all. As we’ve pointed out before, many codec patents are exceptionally easy to work around: They specify every little detail because it makes it _much_ easier to get through the examination but doesn’t harm the patent’s ability to read on the final standard because the standard specifics exactly the patented behaviour. D_S, for all his undeniable H.264 experience isn’t an expert on patents or even the H.264 patents. We can assume that in cases where VP8 looks similar to H.264 those would have been exactly the cases where care was taken to differ in the right places. I’d expect the primary risks for VP8 to be anywhere _but_ there." more at http://blog.gingertech.net/2010/05/20/vp8-adobe-is-the-key-to-open-video/#comment-5882 http://blog.gingertech.net/2010/05/20/vp8-adobe-is-the-key-t...
andybak 16y ago
Sorry for the downvote but that was a very early analysis and the story has progressed a bit since. There's room for a more nuanced evaluation of WebM which I'd like to hear.
- CountSessine 16y ago
  How do you know whether anything at all has advanced? One of the most knowledgeable authorities on video compression has called into question VP8's patent situation. Why is there any need at all to imagine a false opposite? Other than optimism? The whole VP8/webm situation reminds me of when Microsoft tried to do the right thing and open-license VC1, but got clobbered by patent holders and had to reverse themselves.
  - ZeroGravitas 16y ago
    Dark Shakari's latest pronouncement on video encoding patents was to accuse someone of patenting his idea by reading commit logs, and argue at the same time that the idea was obvious to anyone and therefore not patentable. His evidence that it must have been copied? Because it didn't include some later changes he made. (Note this doesn't even pass a basic logic test, never mind constitute a sophisticated take on the current patent situation). He then retracted the accusation. http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/589 http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/589 Update: Tandberg claims they came up with the algorithm independently: to be fair, I can actually believe this to some extent, as I think the algorithm is way too obvious to be patented. Of course, they also claim that the algorithm isn’t actually identical, since they don’t want to lose their patent application. I still don’t trust them, but it’s possible it’s merely bad research (and thus being unaware of prior art) as opposed to anything malicious. Furthermore, word from within their office suggests they’re quite possibly being honest: supposedly the development team does not read x264 code at all. So this might just all be very bad luck. Regardless, the patent is still complete tripe, and should never have been filed.

mbrubeck 16y ago

This comment in response to that post makes an interesting point; the most similar bits are likely the most carefully vetted, and may be written deliberately to avoid patent infringement. Patents on standards can be very narrow; as long they cover exactly what's in the spec, then any implementer of the standard still has to pay up: "Patents are about _details_ so the mere fact that something does something like something else, isn’t necessarily something at all. As we’ve pointed out before, many codec patents are exceptionally easy to work around: They specify every little detail because it makes it _much_ easier to get through the examination but doesn’t harm the patent’s ability to read on the final standard because the standard specifics exactly the patented behaviour. D_S, for all his undeniable H.264 experience isn’t an expert on patents or even the H.264 patents. We can assume that in cases where VP8 looks similar to H.264 those would have been exactly the cases where care was taken to differ in the right places. I’d expect the primary risks for VP8 to be anywhere _but_ there." more at http://blog.gingertech.net/2010/05/20/vp8-adobe-is-the-key-to-open-video/#comment-5882 http://blog.gingertech.net/2010/05/20/vp8-adobe-is-the-key-t...

andybak 16y ago

Sorry for the downvote but that was a very early analysis and the story has progressed a bit since. There's room for a more nuanced evaluation of WebM which I'd like to hear.

CountSessine 16y ago
How do you know whether anything at all has advanced? One of the most knowledgeable authorities on video compression has called into question VP8's patent situation. Why is there any need at all to imagine a false opposite? Other than optimism? The whole VP8/webm situation reminds me of when Microsoft tried to do the right thing and open-license VC1, but got clobbered by patent holders and had to reverse themselves.
- ZeroGravitas 16y ago
  Dark Shakari's latest pronouncement on video encoding patents was to accuse someone of patenting his idea by reading commit logs, and argue at the same time that the idea was obvious to anyone and therefore not patentable. His evidence that it must have been copied? Because it didn't include some later changes he made. (Note this doesn't even pass a basic logic test, never mind constitute a sophisticated take on the current patent situation). He then retracted the accusation. http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/589 http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/589 Update: Tandberg claims they came up with the algorithm independently: to be fair, I can actually believe this to some extent, as I think the algorithm is way too obvious to be patented. Of course, they also claim that the algorithm isn’t actually identical, since they don’t want to lose their patent application. I still don’t trust them, but it’s possible it’s merely bad research (and thus being unaware of prior art) as opposed to anything malicious. Furthermore, word from within their office suggests they’re quite possibly being honest: supposedly the development team does not read x264 code at all. So this might just all be very bad luck. Regardless, the patent is still complete tripe, and should never have been filed.