4 ms·

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 htt

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.
- danudey 16y ago
  As much as I suspected that WebM would be too hot to touch, the fact that the MPEG consortium hasn't done much more than posturing and clucking about the whole affair would seem to indicate that either WebM isn't covered by patents, or (more likely) that Google has some useful patents of their own that's keeping the hordes at bay.
  - brisance 16y ago
    If what you say is true (that Google has patents on WebM), then Google's claim of supporting WebM due to it being "open" is contradictory.
    - nitrogen 16y ago
      Google purchased the patents on WebM/VP8 when it acquired On2, and licensed them in an open-source-friendly, royalty-free way.
      - brisance 16y ago
        It is a patent owned by a corporation that has chosen to license them in a royalty-free way, in the exact same way that MPEG-LA has chosen not to charge fees for end users of MPEG4. The main distinction would be source code access, but as stated by others, that is no guarantee of infringement of others' intellectual property rights. Stated another way: if you had the source code to the MPEG4 codec, would your objections remain?
  - brisance 16y ago
    If what you say is true (that Google has patents on WebM), then Google's claim of supporting WebM due to it being "open" is contradictory.
- mithaler 16y ago
  You're probably right; I can't imagine that Google would have been careless enough to not have an army of lawyers look over everything before releasing it.

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.

danudey 16y ago
As much as I suspected that WebM would be too hot to touch, the fact that the MPEG consortium hasn't done much more than posturing and clucking about the whole affair would seem to indicate that either WebM isn't covered by patents, or (more likely) that Google has some useful patents of their own that's keeping the hordes at bay.
- brisance 16y ago
  If what you say is true (that Google has patents on WebM), then Google's claim of supporting WebM due to it being "open" is contradictory.
  - nitrogen 16y ago
    Google purchased the patents on WebM/VP8 when it acquired On2, and licensed them in an open-source-friendly, royalty-free way.
    - brisance 16y ago
      It is a patent owned by a corporation that has chosen to license them in a royalty-free way, in the exact same way that MPEG-LA has chosen not to charge fees for end users of MPEG4. The main distinction would be source code access, but as stated by others, that is no guarantee of infringement of others' intellectual property rights. Stated another way: if you had the source code to the MPEG4 codec, would your objections remain?
- brisance 16y ago
  If what you say is true (that Google has patents on WebM), then Google's claim of supporting WebM due to it being "open" is contradictory.
mithaler 16y ago
You're probably right; I can't imagine that Google would have been careless enough to not have an army of lawyers look over everything before releasing it.