3 ms·

"Are you aware of the fact that On2 released VP3 before H.264 was released (2000 vs. 2003), and that therefore, the MPEG-LA most likely infringes on On2 (now ow

"Are you aware of the fact that On2 released VP3 before H.264 was released (2000 vs. 2003), and that therefore, the MPEG-LA most likely infringes on On2 (now owned by Google) patents?" That does not follow at all. edit: I should say that it only follows if the patents in the patent pool apply exclusively/specifically to H.264.

raganwald 16y ago
Your point is excellent. The thing to remember is that when two systems each have patents, it's a false dichotomy to ask which set of patents trump the other. It's entirely possible that VP3 infringes on MPEG-LA patents _and_ H.264 infringes on On2/Google patents. The chronology of the two is nearly irrelevant.
- ergo98 16y ago
  >The thing to remember is that when two systems each have patents, it's a false dichotomy to ask which set of patents trump the other. Where is the false dichotomy? The current talking point on the h264 versus WebM war is that WebM is a patent landmine, while your back is covered with h264. There is some sort of broad belief that h264 is a universal got-your-back patent defense, and that is simply ludicrous.
  - po 16y ago
    The false dichotomy is exactly as he said: that one or the other has to be infringing on the other. As to your point, h264 has been on the market for a while now and is implemented by some seriously deep pockets. If you were the captain of the submarine patent ship, you would probably have fired the torpedos by now. If you're a new company, you'll feel pretty safe standing with Apple and all of the other MPEG licensees who have a vested interest in fighting. This is not the case with WebM.
kenjackson 16y ago
I should say that it only follows if the patents in the patent pool apply exclusively/specifically to H.264. And they don't. For example, "Method for processing decoded picture blocks in a block-based method of picture coding" was filed in '96 and granted in '99, and is part of the H264 patent pool. There's a long list that goes like this. MPEG-LA actually goes through great effort to show how each specific claim in the patent maps to a specific section in the spec: http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/avcCrossRefChart.pdf http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/avcCrossRe...

raganwald 16y ago

Your point is excellent. The thing to remember is that when two systems each have patents, it's a false dichotomy to ask which set of patents trump the other. It's entirely possible that VP3 infringes on MPEG-LA patents _and_ H.264 infringes on On2/Google patents. The chronology of the two is nearly irrelevant.

ergo98 16y ago
>The thing to remember is that when two systems each have patents, it's a false dichotomy to ask which set of patents trump the other. Where is the false dichotomy? The current talking point on the h264 versus WebM war is that WebM is a patent landmine, while your back is covered with h264. There is some sort of broad belief that h264 is a universal got-your-back patent defense, and that is simply ludicrous.
- po 16y ago
  The false dichotomy is exactly as he said: that one or the other has to be infringing on the other. As to your point, h264 has been on the market for a while now and is implemented by some seriously deep pockets. If you were the captain of the submarine patent ship, you would probably have fired the torpedos by now. If you're a new company, you'll feel pretty safe standing with Apple and all of the other MPEG licensees who have a vested interest in fighting. This is not the case with WebM.

kenjackson 16y ago

I should say that it only follows if the patents in the patent pool apply exclusively/specifically to H.264. And they don't. For example, "Method for processing decoded picture blocks in a block-based method of picture coding" was filed in '96 and granted in '99, and is part of the H264 patent pool. There's a long list that goes like this. MPEG-LA actually goes through great effort to show how each specific claim in the patent maps to a specific section in the spec: http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/avcCrossRefChart.pdf http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/avcCrossRe...