4 ms·
I'm sure Google's lawyers are good, but they aquired On2 in 2009. They've had barely a year to research On2's patents, prior art, and MPEG-LA's patents. As well
by redrobot5050 16y ago
I'm sure Google's lawyers are good, but they aquired On2 in 2009. They've had barely a year to research On2's patents, prior art, and MPEG-LA's patents. As well as research the changes in VP8 (from VP6? the other allegedly unencumbered codecs) and compared them to H.264.
- robin_reala 16y agoA year’s analysis from a legal team is probably preferable to a day’s analysis from a codec developer.
- redrobot5050 16y agoExactly. And since Google has decided not to indemnify users of WebM, it would be logical to conclude Google's lawyers believe that MPEG-LA likely has a case. Otherwise, why not really get hardware developers on board with indemnity promises?
- robin_reala 16y agoThey’ve got hardware developers on board regardless of indemnification or not. It just takes time to develop silicon.
- redrobot5050 16y agoI'm aware of this. My point being is none of the other hardware vendors know if they're going to get sued until a potential patent submarine fires its torpedoes. Would you want to bet your business by being the first?
- stanleydrew 16y agoI'm absolutely certain that Google's legal team didn't begin studying On2's patents after the acquisition. There was probably at least another 6 to 12 months of analysis before the acquisition occurred.
- danudey 16y agoI think the assertion here is that Google would have researched their patents and prior art BEFORE actually buying the company (this is what the due diligence process is for). Google's only had a year go convert the VP8 code into open-source WebM code.