5 ms·

by people who have actually implemented H.264 and are familiar with the patents ... I'm gonna go with the analysis of the guy who said his B-frame implementatio

by ergo98 16y ago

by people who have actually implemented H.264 and are familiar with the patents ... I'm gonna go with the analysis of the guy who said his B-frame implementation gave x264 the project's single greatest encoding quality improvement over the guy who thinks the release date of VP3 determines which patents encumber VP8, thanks. I see this a lot. It purports that Jason Garrett-Glaser has done an expert analysis of all of MPEG-LAs patents and has proclaimed specific infringement by VP8. Of course that's complete bullshit. His analysis was superficially that there are similarities, and thus there may be infringement. Not one actual patent claim was shown to be infringed upon, much less even referenced to show that there was any understanding of it. His analysis was as a codec guy. Not as a patent guy. The devil are in the details. It turns out (ha ha!) that when people vying for standards lay their patent traps, they tend to be extremely specific, ensuring that they don't get caught by prior art (there is plenty), but that they trap anyone who implements the standard. See Microsoft ActiveSync patents as a perfect example of this. Does WebM infringe patents? Almost without question, as is the nature of the ridiculously generous patent system. Just as h264 is almost certainly infringing on patents of other parties that just haven't come forward to make their claims yet (and for which a h264 license is zero protection). But one gets the sense that the author sees it as some sort of devastating argument. Just as Gruber's post was framed. Google supports Flash, therefore they can't possibly be open, therefore Google is closed, therefore Google is evil...or something like that. Preaching to the choir and all that so I don't think much critical thought is necessary.

tptacek 16y ago
Flash is demonstrably, prima facie closed. There's no argument to be had about it. Similarly, I'm not interested in litigating exactly how literate Garret-Glaser is about video IP if it's the case that this guy has absolutely no background in video. I can read press releases myself. On the off chance that it's helpful, here's the author's bio: My name is Thom Arvid Holwerda. I was born on the 1st of December in 1984, at the Medical Centre in Alkmaar, Noord-Holland, The Netherlands. Currently I live in Warmenhuizen, a small village a few miles north of Alkmaar (about 45 minutes by car north of Amsterdam). I've finished Latin/Greek school, and studied Psychology for two years at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam (birthplace of MINIX); however, Psychology was not my thing, so I switched to something else. I'm now studying Information & Communication Sciences; a study which, other than the name might suggest, focuses mainly on language. About 50% of the study consists of studying a modern (to me) foreign language (Spanish, French, German, Italian or, in my case, English). My master will be Journalism. You're right, Garret-Glaser isn't a patent attorney. On the other hand, he's an x264 developer intimately familiar with the standard.
- jarek 16y ago
  > You're right, Garret-Glaser isn't a patent attorney. On the other hand, he's an x264 developer intimately familiar with the standard. In other words, he's definitely qualified to comment how similar VP8 might be, which few people deny, and not very well qualified to comment how infringing VP8 might be.
  - grellas 16y ago
    MPEG LA was quoted last June as follows: "MPEG LA doesn't favor one codec technology over another; we are like a convenience store that offers patent licenses for any number of codecs as a service to the market." (quoted in "Patent cloud looms over Google Web video plan," http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20006245-264.html?tag=mncol;txt http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20006245-264.html?tag=mnco...) Infringing or not, you may be like the local merchant who is forced to buy "insurance" to stay safe.
    - CaptainZapp 16y ago
      So, why didn't we see any action by the MPEG-LA and only ominous threats and some innuendo? WebM is arguably the currently biggest threat to the goose that lays MPEG-LA's golden eggs. See also how they backtracked on royalties regarding web usage (even though you're still inviting a trojan codec into your home). It reminds me at Microsoft's 250 or so patents over Linux, "but we won't tell you what they are, sucker"! Put up, MPEG-LA, or shut up!
      - jarek 16y ago
        > So, why didn't we see any action by the MPEG-LA and only ominous threats and some innuendo? Because if we did see action, we'd find out once for and for all whether their innuendo has anything solid behind it. It's the standard patent FUD process, aided by everyone who says "it's probably patent encumbered", "we don't know whether it's unencumbered". It's much better to imply they can crush you rather than actually try to crush you and risk failure. And the best part is that by implying they can crush you but not actually doing so, they can appear to be exercising benevolent goodwill while the FUD does most of the crushing for them, risk-free.

by ergo98 16y ago

tptacek 16y ago

Flash is demonstrably, prima facie closed. There's no argument to be had about it. Similarly, I'm not interested in litigating exactly how literate Garret-Glaser is about video IP if it's the case that this guy has absolutely no background in video. I can read press releases myself. On the off chance that it's helpful, here's the author's bio: My name is Thom Arvid Holwerda. I was born on the 1st of December in 1984, at the Medical Centre in Alkmaar, Noord-Holland, The Netherlands. Currently I live in Warmenhuizen, a small village a few miles north of Alkmaar (about 45 minutes by car north of Amsterdam). I've finished Latin/Greek school, and studied Psychology for two years at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam (birthplace of MINIX); however, Psychology was not my thing, so I switched to something else. I'm now studying Information & Communication Sciences; a study which, other than the name might suggest, focuses mainly on language. About 50% of the study consists of studying a modern (to me) foreign language (Spanish, French, German, Italian or, in my case, English). My master will be Journalism. You're right, Garret-Glaser isn't a patent attorney. On the other hand, he's an x264 developer intimately familiar with the standard.

jarek 16y ago
> You're right, Garret-Glaser isn't a patent attorney. On the other hand, he's an x264 developer intimately familiar with the standard. In other words, he's definitely qualified to comment how similar VP8 might be, which few people deny, and not very well qualified to comment how infringing VP8 might be.
- grellas 16y ago
  MPEG LA was quoted last June as follows: "MPEG LA doesn't favor one codec technology over another; we are like a convenience store that offers patent licenses for any number of codecs as a service to the market." (quoted in "Patent cloud looms over Google Web video plan," http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20006245-264.html?tag=mncol;txt http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20006245-264.html?tag=mnco...) Infringing or not, you may be like the local merchant who is forced to buy "insurance" to stay safe.
  - CaptainZapp 16y ago
    So, why didn't we see any action by the MPEG-LA and only ominous threats and some innuendo? WebM is arguably the currently biggest threat to the goose that lays MPEG-LA's golden eggs. See also how they backtracked on royalties regarding web usage (even though you're still inviting a trojan codec into your home). It reminds me at Microsoft's 250 or so patents over Linux, "but we won't tell you what they are, sucker"! Put up, MPEG-LA, or shut up!
    - jarek 16y ago
      > So, why didn't we see any action by the MPEG-LA and only ominous threats and some innuendo? Because if we did see action, we'd find out once for and for all whether their innuendo has anything solid behind it. It's the standard patent FUD process, aided by everyone who says "it's probably patent encumbered", "we don't know whether it's unencumbered". It's much better to imply they can crush you rather than actually try to crush you and risk failure. And the best part is that by implying they can crush you but not actually doing so, they can appear to be exercising benevolent goodwill while the FUD does most of the crushing for them, risk-free.