5 ms·

sounds like you think WebM is not patent encumbered. that's actually an open question. the only thing Google has done is sent users back into Adobe's arms for

by svlla 16y ago

sounds like you think WebM is not patent encumbered. that's actually an open question. the only thing Google has done is sent users back into Adobe's arms for h.264 playback.

jbri 16y ago
Do you feel that WebM is patent encumbered? Can you point to any pre-existing patents that you feel it is covered by?
- svlla 16y ago
  Do you feel that Google is going to get companies to make hardware decoders for WebM? Can you point to any statement from Google, given that WebM is similar to H.264, that explains how WebM manages to avoid all H.264-related patents and/or will indemnify users from patent claims?
  - drivebyacct2 16y ago
    Hardware decoders already exist for VP8.
    - app 16y ago
      Are there any you can buy today? I honestly don't know of any. EDIT: Thanks, I guess the answer is no...
      - drivebyacct2 16y ago
        First Google result. :) Cheers: http://blog.webmproject.org/2011/01/availability-of-webm-vp8-video-hardware.html http://blog.webmproject.org/2011/01/availability-of-webm-vp8...
  - kjksf 16y ago
    Question about hardware: http://blog.webmproject.org/2011/01/availability-of-webm-vp8-video-hardware.html http://blog.webmproject.org/2011/01/availability-of-webm-vp8..., http://mashable.com/2010/05/19/vp8-webm-support/ http://mashable.com/2010/05/19/vp8-webm-support/ Your patent FUD: any software can be potentially sued for patent infringement. You can't prove the opposite. See Oracle vs. Google on Java patents and a number of other examples. Pointing that out about WebM software specifically is not insightful. You can make the exact "but can you prove it doesn't infringe patents" statements about any software product. There are, however, reasons to believe that WebM does indeed avoids patents. 1. It's a technology that has been created and commercially licensed by On2 for years. In all those years no one sued On2. 2. On2 licensees (including Adobe) were confident enough about the technology being patent-free to pay good money for the license. 3. Google, presumably, is not stupid and didn't pay hundreds of millions of dollars without doing a technology evaluation, including potential patent issues. 4. Even if someone sues WebM, Google has a better chance than most to defend it. So while no one can ever satisfy people demanding impossible proof of WebM being safe from patent threats, there are very good reasons to believe it is indeed safe.
    - app 16y ago
      1. On2 never went to market with VP8 before the sale to Google. To say that they weren't sued for something they didn't release doesn't prove anything, especially since VP8 was marketed as a evolution of VP6. 2. See #1, they licensed VP6 not VP8/WebM. 3. No doubt! 4. Google does not indemnify users of WebM (http://www.webmproject.org/license/software/ http://www.webmproject.org/license/software/). If someone were to sue you for WebM, it's not an attack on Google and they have no reason to pick up your legal bill. Sure, it's not unreasonable to assume that if many large companies adopt a technology it's safe to use, but it doesn't protect you from being attacked individually. Armchair legal hand waving goes both ways.
    - svlla 16y ago
      There's a difference between hardware designs and actual hardware... Google doesn't offer indemnity for use of the format so why do you think they'd be the only defendant? If Google's so smart like you say, if they're so kind hearted, then why aren't they offering indemnity?
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- mithaler 16y ago
  Analysis on this score has been done by an x264 developer (this came out around the same time WebM was announced): http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/377 http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/377 Money quote, from the conclusion: "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." There are examples given throughout the post.
  - bryanlarsen 16y ago
    And here's the money quote from the comments (post stolen from mrbrubeck: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2093675 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2093675) 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-t.. http://blog.gingertech.net/2010/05/20/vp8-adobe-is-the-key-t....
  - statictype 16y ago
    I saw this analysis when it came out. He certainly may know what he's talking about but I think it's more likely that Google's due diligence would have caught these legal issues than an x264 developer. Not guaranteed, but likely.
    - 16y ago

by svlla 16y ago

sounds like you think WebM is not patent encumbered. that's actually an open question. the only thing Google has done is sent users back into Adobe's arms for h.264 playback.

jbri 16y ago

Do you feel that WebM is patent encumbered? Can you point to any pre-existing patents that you feel it is covered by?

svlla 16y ago
Do you feel that Google is going to get companies to make hardware decoders for WebM? Can you point to any statement from Google, given that WebM is similar to H.264, that explains how WebM manages to avoid all H.264-related patents and/or will indemnify users from patent claims?
- drivebyacct2 16y ago
  Hardware decoders already exist for VP8.
  - app 16y ago
    Are there any you can buy today? I honestly don't know of any. EDIT: Thanks, I guess the answer is no...
    - drivebyacct2 16y ago
      First Google result. :) Cheers: http://blog.webmproject.org/2011/01/availability-of-webm-vp8-video-hardware.html http://blog.webmproject.org/2011/01/availability-of-webm-vp8...
- kjksf 16y ago
  Question about hardware: http://blog.webmproject.org/2011/01/availability-of-webm-vp8-video-hardware.html http://blog.webmproject.org/2011/01/availability-of-webm-vp8..., http://mashable.com/2010/05/19/vp8-webm-support/ http://mashable.com/2010/05/19/vp8-webm-support/ Your patent FUD: any software can be potentially sued for patent infringement. You can't prove the opposite. See Oracle vs. Google on Java patents and a number of other examples. Pointing that out about WebM software specifically is not insightful. You can make the exact "but can you prove it doesn't infringe patents" statements about any software product. There are, however, reasons to believe that WebM does indeed avoids patents. 1. It's a technology that has been created and commercially licensed by On2 for years. In all those years no one sued On2. 2. On2 licensees (including Adobe) were confident enough about the technology being patent-free to pay good money for the license. 3. Google, presumably, is not stupid and didn't pay hundreds of millions of dollars without doing a technology evaluation, including potential patent issues. 4. Even if someone sues WebM, Google has a better chance than most to defend it. So while no one can ever satisfy people demanding impossible proof of WebM being safe from patent threats, there are very good reasons to believe it is indeed safe.
  - app 16y ago
    1. On2 never went to market with VP8 before the sale to Google. To say that they weren't sued for something they didn't release doesn't prove anything, especially since VP8 was marketed as a evolution of VP6. 2. See #1, they licensed VP6 not VP8/WebM. 3. No doubt! 4. Google does not indemnify users of WebM (http://www.webmproject.org/license/software/ http://www.webmproject.org/license/software/). If someone were to sue you for WebM, it's not an attack on Google and they have no reason to pick up your legal bill. Sure, it's not unreasonable to assume that if many large companies adopt a technology it's safe to use, but it doesn't protect you from being attacked individually. Armchair legal hand waving goes both ways.
  - svlla 16y ago
    There's a difference between hardware designs and actual hardware... Google doesn't offer indemnity for use of the format so why do you think they'd be the only defendant? If Google's so smart like you say, if they're so kind hearted, then why aren't they offering indemnity?
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
mithaler 16y ago
Analysis on this score has been done by an x264 developer (this came out around the same time WebM was announced): http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/377 http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/377 Money quote, from the conclusion: "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." There are examples given throughout the post.
- bryanlarsen 16y ago
  And here's the money quote from the comments (post stolen from mrbrubeck: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2093675 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2093675) 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-t.. http://blog.gingertech.net/2010/05/20/vp8-adobe-is-the-key-t....
- statictype 16y ago
  I saw this analysis when it came out. He certainly may know what he's talking about but I think it's more likely that Google's due diligence would have caught these legal issues than an x264 developer. Not guaranteed, but likely.
  - 16y ago