3 ms·
The IE blog post in question (http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2011/02/02/html5-and-web-video-questions-for-the-industry-from-the-community.aspx#comments http
by contextfree 16y ago
The IE blog post in question (http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2011/02/02/html5-and-web-video-questions-for-the-industry-from-the-community.aspx#comments http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2011/02/02/html5-and-web-...) seems more interesting than the media stories suggest - here's what appears to be the most substantive paragraph:
"Ultimately, Microsoft remains agnostic in terms of HTML5 video as long as there is clarity on the intellectual property issues. To make it clear that we are fully willing to participate in a resolution of these issues, Microsoft is willing to commit that we will never assert any patents on VP8 if Google will make a commitment to indemnify us and all other developers and customers who use VP8 in the future. We would only ask that we be able to use those patent rights if we are sued first by somebody else. If Google would prefer a patent pool approach, then we would also agree to join a patent pool for VP8 on reasonable licensing terms so long as Google joins the pool and is able to include all other major providers of playback software and devices."
The question of indemnification seems pertinent to me, but I've only been superficially following this issue - maybe it's a red herring and Google has good reason not to offer indemnification etc. I'm curious to see the case for that.
- kenjackson 16y agoIndemnification is not likely, but MS asks for good reason. They probably suspect (or maybe knows) that WebM infringes on some patents. The patent pool, just as it does with H264, gets every player in the game to effectively commit to not assert patents. Good move by MS. And certainly shows that they're more willing to play than anyone else has demonstrated so far.
- megaman821 16y agoMicrosoft has a really good point here. Google might be fine with phone manufactures getting sued over patent violations in Android, but that is not how Microsoft conducts business. If they included VP8 support in IE9, them and their partners can be sued for patent infringement, so the best they can due is work with Google to make a plugin. If Google offers indemnify over VP8, Microsoft can pass it along.
- nitrogen 16y agoIndemnification is unheard of in codecs. Microsoft and SMPTE don't indemnify users of VC-1. MPEG-LA doesn't indemnify users of H.264. Google offering indemnification for WebM would effectively be suicide. They'd be painting themselves with a giant target and taunting every money-grubbing patent troll in existence.
- noibl 16y agoThis is the classic case of saying 'I'm all for it as long as you can get everyone else onboard' when you believe that their chances of doing so are nil. If they managed to do it, your position would then be dictated by events anyway. Asking for 'indemnification' as an alternative demand shows just how high the bar is being set. When you strip away fantasies like 'indemnify' and 'group-hug patent pool', the only significant line left is 'we are not willing to commit that we will never assert any patent rights on VP8', or "we just might sue".
- tuxychandru 16y agoWhen MPEG LA which holds several codec related patents in its pool cannot indemnify its H.264 licensees, Google indemnifying WebM sounds far fetched.