3 ms·
I have a few questions. 1. Does this mean that MPEG-LA has concluded it has no existing patents in the H.264 pool that are essential to what VP8 does? If they
by asadotzler 16y ago
I have a few questions.
1. Does this mean that MPEG-LA has concluded it has no existing patents in the H.264 pool that are essential to what VP8 does? If they did, wouldn't those be the seeds of this new pool? Or maybe even obviate the need for a new pool?
2. Does Google have anything in its royalty free patent grant that says "If you sue us or otherwise challenge our VP8 IP, you can't get a free license from us"? If so, wouldn't that kill any possibility of a successful MPEG-LA pool? Who would license some percentage from MPEG-LA knowing they couldn't get a license for the rest from Google.
3. Couldn't Google just buy who ever steps up and says "I have essential patents"?
- wmf 16y agoDoes this mean that MPEG-LA has concluded it has no existing patents in the H.264 pool that are essential to what VP8 does? Rather than reading tens of thousands of claims to find ones that apply to VP8, MPEG LA has outsourced that work to the patent holders themselves. If you want your patent to be included in the VP8 pool, you have to speak up. If they did, wouldn't those be the seeds of this new pool? Yes, I would expect that the VP8 pool will basically be a subset of the H.264 pool. Who would license some percentage from MPEG-LA knowing they couldn't get a license for the rest from Google. Google could get in antitrust trouble for refusal to license VP8 patents after claiming that VP8 is "open". Couldn't Google just buy who ever steps up and says "I have essential patents"? You mean like Sony, Philips, Fraunhofer, Mitsubishi, Columbia University, etc.? http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensors.aspx http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensors.aspx