6 ms·

> The devil you know versus the devil you don't. You don't know the H.264 devil any better. It's just as likely that some lone patent wolf will come forward a

> The devil you know versus the devil you don't. You don't know the H.264 devil any better. It's just as likely that some lone patent wolf will come forward and go after H.264. It's simply FUD to say that WebM is somehow more susceptible. Just because MPEG-LA makes you pay for their set of patents doesn't mean they're protecting you against patents they don't hold.

kenjackson 16y ago
I'd say you know the H264 devil a little better. Why? Because its spec and patents have been extremely well documented for a decade (or so), commented on, and implemented (there are at least 10 implementations I know of). Whereas WebM's details first came to light less than a year ago. You're right that it is possible that either still violate some patent out in the wild. BUT if you were to weigh the odds -- a nearly decade old open standard technology that has openly solicited and worked to get all potential patent holders in the pool OR a technology closed and proprietary until last year. You really call even money on that?
- ZeroGravitas 16y ago
  It seems to be widely accepted that WebM is a minor variation on H.264 with changes specifically designed to avoid the H.264 patents, which as you mention have been openly published and well documented for years. Since large segments of H.264 were simply dropped for WebM, apparently there's only about 49 H.264 patents total (out of over a thousand) that could even remotely apply. That seems a reasonable number for On2 to work around, and for Google (and everyone else listed on their supporters page)'s lawyers to double check. So now we are speculating about a random patent troll who happens to hold a patent that doesn't read on H.264 but does read on a simplified version of H.264 with some minor patent avoiding variations. Seems to me that if you're arguing H.264 is clean, then so is WebM.
  - kenjackson 16y ago
    Your interpretation doesn't match those of people who have analyzed it. The problem with WebM is that it may infringe on H264 patents! And its not clear they have done enough to avoid the problems. H264 has come together to form a very strong patent pool. None of the patents can be asserted against H264 (nor can the partner companies in general), but any of them can be asserted against WebM. Read JGG's account, which is still the best account to date at: http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/377 http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/377 Some quotes: "But as noted in my previous post, merely being published by Google doesn’t guarantee that it is. Microsoft did similar a few years ago with the release of VC-1, which was claimed to be patent-free but within mere months after release, a whole bunch of companies claimed patents on it and soon enough a patent pool was formed." "VP8 is simply way too similar to H.264: a pithy, if slightly inaccurate, description of VP8 would be "H.264 Baseline Profile with a better entropy coder". Even VC-1 differed more from H.264 than VP8 does, and even VC-1 didn’t manage to escape the clutches of software patents." "Most importantly, Google has not released any justifications for why the various parts of VP8 do not violate patents, as Sun did with their OMS standard: such information would certainly cut down on speculation and make it more clear what their position actually is." And not about patents, but the quality of the spec: "The spec consists largely of C code copy-pasted from the VP8 source code up to and including TODOs, optimizations, and even C-specific hacks, such as workarounds for the undefined behavior of signed right shift on negative numbers. In many places it is simply outright opaque. Copy-pasted C code is not a spec. I may have complained about the H.264 spec being overly verbose, but at least it’s precise. The VP8 spec, by comparison, is imprecise, unclear, and overly short, leaving many portions of the format very vaguely explained. Some parts even explicitly refuse to fully explain a particular feature, pointing to highly-optimized, nigh-impossible-to-understand reference code for an explanation. There’s no way in hell anyone could write a decoder solely with this spec alone." But maybe Google will fix it? Ummm think again; "Update: it seems that Google is not open to changing the spec: it is apparently "final", complete with all its flaws." I just don't see how one can feel equally comfortable with WebM.
    - ZeroGravitas 16y ago
      Here's an analysis, which builds on the analysis in your link. I think it's obvious which one makes more sense if you read both: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/an-analysis-of-webm-and-its-patent-risk/ http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/an-analysis-of-webm-and-its-p... Some highlights: "Dark Shikari makes several considerations, some related to the implementation itself, and many related to its “patent status”. For example: “VP8’s intra prediction is basically ripped off wholesale from H.264″, without mentioning that the intra prediction mode is actually pre-dating H264; actually, it was part of Nokia MVC proposal and H263++ extensions published in 2000, and the specific WebM implementation is different from the one mentioned in the “essential patents” of H264 as specified by the MPEG-LA. If you go through the post, you will find lots of curious mentions of “sub-optimal” choices: [big list of the identical features with minor differences between H.264 and VP8] What we can obtain from this (very thorough – thanks, Jason!) analysis is the fact that from my point of view it is clear that On2 was actually aware of patents, and tried very hard to avoid them. It is also clear that this is in no way an assurance that there are no situation of patent infringements, only that it seems that due diligence was performed. Also, WebM is not comparable to H264 in terms of technical sophistication (it is more in line with MPEG4/VC1) but this is clearly done to avoid recent patents; some of the patents on older specification are already expired (for example, all France Telecom patents on H264 are expired)." There's also a follow up here which discusses the thought process behind the 49 potential H.264 patents: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/on-webm-again-freedom-quality-patents/ http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/on-webm-again-freedom-quality...
  - foljs 16y ago
    > Since large segments of H.264 were simply dropped for WebM, apparently there's only about 49 H.264 patents total (out of over a thousand) that could even remotely apply. Emmm, the fact that they dropped stuff and implemented it in a clean house way in no way does guarantee that the new implementation is not patent encumbering.
- haberman 16y ago
  What I'd "call even money on" is that patent holders who are looking for a piece of the video decoding royalty pie would have jumped on the MPEG-LA gravy train already. I also would bet that Google's legal team knows what they're doing.
  - kenjackson 16y ago
    patent holders who are looking for a piece of the video decoding royalty pie would have jumped on the MPEG-LA gravy train already. They have... they're called members of the pool. The same ones that came after Microsoft when MS did VC-1. The same ones who will come after WebM.
    - haberman 16y ago
      Google already knows about them. And has bet the future on WebM anyway. I trust Google's legal counsel more than I trust you. What if H.264 infringes on some of Google's patents? Google could countersue and go after members of MPEG-LA, or even end-users of H.264. Google's patent license only covers Google's WebM implementation.
      - kenjackson 16y ago
        You do realize that Google's legal counsel has very little say in this. Google's engineers are making the call and the counsel is just providing legal advice. The legal counsel doesn't know what is infringing on what. With that said, you'd probably say that you trust Google's engineers more than me. I'd hope so. You have no idea who I am.
        haberman 16y ago
        > Google's engineers are making the call and the counsel is just providing legal advice. The legal counsel doesn't know what is infringing on what. [citation needed] What makes you think that a big company with enormous potential for legal liability would let engineers make decisions that are of legal consequence, like whether to aggressively push a video format amidst a patent minefield? Do you think the engineers wrote the patent license too?

kenjackson 16y ago

I'd say you know the H264 devil a little better. Why? Because its spec and patents have been extremely well documented for a decade (or so), commented on, and implemented (there are at least 10 implementations I know of). Whereas WebM's details first came to light less than a year ago. You're right that it is possible that either still violate some patent out in the wild. BUT if you were to weigh the odds -- a nearly decade old open standard technology that has openly solicited and worked to get all potential patent holders in the pool OR a technology closed and proprietary until last year. You really call even money on that?

ZeroGravitas 16y ago
It seems to be widely accepted that WebM is a minor variation on H.264 with changes specifically designed to avoid the H.264 patents, which as you mention have been openly published and well documented for years. Since large segments of H.264 were simply dropped for WebM, apparently there's only about 49 H.264 patents total (out of over a thousand) that could even remotely apply. That seems a reasonable number for On2 to work around, and for Google (and everyone else listed on their supporters page)'s lawyers to double check. So now we are speculating about a random patent troll who happens to hold a patent that doesn't read on H.264 but does read on a simplified version of H.264 with some minor patent avoiding variations. Seems to me that if you're arguing H.264 is clean, then so is WebM.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  Your interpretation doesn't match those of people who have analyzed it. The problem with WebM is that it may infringe on H264 patents! And its not clear they have done enough to avoid the problems. H264 has come together to form a very strong patent pool. None of the patents can be asserted against H264 (nor can the partner companies in general), but any of them can be asserted against WebM. Read JGG's account, which is still the best account to date at: http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/377 http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/377 Some quotes: "But as noted in my previous post, merely being published by Google doesn’t guarantee that it is. Microsoft did similar a few years ago with the release of VC-1, which was claimed to be patent-free but within mere months after release, a whole bunch of companies claimed patents on it and soon enough a patent pool was formed." "VP8 is simply way too similar to H.264: a pithy, if slightly inaccurate, description of VP8 would be "H.264 Baseline Profile with a better entropy coder". Even VC-1 differed more from H.264 than VP8 does, and even VC-1 didn’t manage to escape the clutches of software patents." "Most importantly, Google has not released any justifications for why the various parts of VP8 do not violate patents, as Sun did with their OMS standard: such information would certainly cut down on speculation and make it more clear what their position actually is." And not about patents, but the quality of the spec: "The spec consists largely of C code copy-pasted from the VP8 source code up to and including TODOs, optimizations, and even C-specific hacks, such as workarounds for the undefined behavior of signed right shift on negative numbers. In many places it is simply outright opaque. Copy-pasted C code is not a spec. I may have complained about the H.264 spec being overly verbose, but at least it’s precise. The VP8 spec, by comparison, is imprecise, unclear, and overly short, leaving many portions of the format very vaguely explained. Some parts even explicitly refuse to fully explain a particular feature, pointing to highly-optimized, nigh-impossible-to-understand reference code for an explanation. There’s no way in hell anyone could write a decoder solely with this spec alone." But maybe Google will fix it? Ummm think again; "Update: it seems that Google is not open to changing the spec: it is apparently "final", complete with all its flaws." I just don't see how one can feel equally comfortable with WebM.
  - ZeroGravitas 16y ago
    Here's an analysis, which builds on the analysis in your link. I think it's obvious which one makes more sense if you read both: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/an-analysis-of-webm-and-its-patent-risk/ http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/an-analysis-of-webm-and-its-p... Some highlights: "Dark Shikari makes several considerations, some related to the implementation itself, and many related to its “patent status”. For example: “VP8’s intra prediction is basically ripped off wholesale from H.264″, without mentioning that the intra prediction mode is actually pre-dating H264; actually, it was part of Nokia MVC proposal and H263++ extensions published in 2000, and the specific WebM implementation is different from the one mentioned in the “essential patents” of H264 as specified by the MPEG-LA. If you go through the post, you will find lots of curious mentions of “sub-optimal” choices: [big list of the identical features with minor differences between H.264 and VP8] What we can obtain from this (very thorough – thanks, Jason!) analysis is the fact that from my point of view it is clear that On2 was actually aware of patents, and tried very hard to avoid them. It is also clear that this is in no way an assurance that there are no situation of patent infringements, only that it seems that due diligence was performed. Also, WebM is not comparable to H264 in terms of technical sophistication (it is more in line with MPEG4/VC1) but this is clearly done to avoid recent patents; some of the patents on older specification are already expired (for example, all France Telecom patents on H264 are expired)." There's also a follow up here which discusses the thought process behind the 49 potential H.264 patents: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/on-webm-again-freedom-quality-patents/ http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/on-webm-again-freedom-quality...
- foljs 16y ago
  > Since large segments of H.264 were simply dropped for WebM, apparently there's only about 49 H.264 patents total (out of over a thousand) that could even remotely apply. Emmm, the fact that they dropped stuff and implemented it in a clean house way in no way does guarantee that the new implementation is not patent encumbering.
haberman 16y ago
What I'd "call even money on" is that patent holders who are looking for a piece of the video decoding royalty pie would have jumped on the MPEG-LA gravy train already. I also would bet that Google's legal team knows what they're doing.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  patent holders who are looking for a piece of the video decoding royalty pie would have jumped on the MPEG-LA gravy train already. They have... they're called members of the pool. The same ones that came after Microsoft when MS did VC-1. The same ones who will come after WebM.
  - haberman 16y ago
    Google already knows about them. And has bet the future on WebM anyway. I trust Google's legal counsel more than I trust you. What if H.264 infringes on some of Google's patents? Google could countersue and go after members of MPEG-LA, or even end-users of H.264. Google's patent license only covers Google's WebM implementation.
    - kenjackson 16y ago
      You do realize that Google's legal counsel has very little say in this. Google's engineers are making the call and the counsel is just providing legal advice. The legal counsel doesn't know what is infringing on what. With that said, you'd probably say that you trust Google's engineers more than me. I'd hope so. You have no idea who I am.
      - haberman 16y ago
        > Google's engineers are making the call and the counsel is just providing legal advice. The legal counsel doesn't know what is infringing on what. [citation needed] What makes you think that a big company with enormous potential for legal liability would let engineers make decisions that are of legal consequence, like whether to aggressively push a video format amidst a patent minefield? Do you think the engineers wrote the patent license too?