7 ms·

I was confused until I read: "For a $1,000 laptop, Motorola is demanding that Microsoft pay a royalty of $22.50 for its 50 patents on the video standard, calle

by Zirro 15y ago

I was confused until I read: "For a $1,000 laptop, Motorola is demanding that Microsoft pay a royalty of $22.50 for its 50 patents on the video standard, called H.264." Google (and thus Motorola) wants to increase the use of WebM (instead of H.264) on the web. I see this as a positive thing, even though I am not sure how to feel about the methods used here. Still the message to Microsoft is clear: Implement WebM so that we can have the same, open-source format across the Internet. Killing H.264 is not the same as killing video on the web.

kevingadd 15y ago
Killing H264 is shortsighted and destructive since at present, there's no way Apple is ever going to drop H264 for WebM. All it accomplishes is fragmenting the web further and hurting end-users.
- vibrunazo 15y ago
  Why wouldn't Apple adopt Webm?
  - othermaciej 15y ago
    Perhaps this very Microsoft blog post gives some insight into why an organization might hesitate to use a technology covered by Google-owned patents. (Google has promised to continue Motorola's policies on standards-essential patents, i.e., they will use them as a weapon.)
  - mikeryan 15y ago
    First its an inferior codec (particularly when compared to h.264 main or high profile) Second its unclear if WebM is patent encumbered or not. AFAIK its not yet been tested but if this current battle heats up its likely to come under fire fast. Third you now have literally millions of mobile devices and other CE devices with built in H.264 hardware video decoders very few with built in WebM. A lot of folks haven't cared that H.264 is patent encumbered, they pay the licensing fees and go on their way with a very tried and true codec. Until now...
    - fpgeek 15y ago
      I suspect (but can't prove) that WebM is more battle-tested than you think. It has been shipping in Android phones since Gingerbread and it also ships in Chrome (which comes directly from Google). Those are big, fat juicy targets for anyone who thinks they have a patent that can take WebM down. No one has even tried. I wonder why? I suppose they might be laying low to get more WebM adoption and more potential damages, but how many millions of infringing instances can you want?
  - dubya 15y ago
    They could, for future products, but I suspect that all current iDevices have hardware H264 decoding support, and no WebM decoding support. Meaning battery life or performance would suffer on the web, though it would still be fine for things obtained from itunes.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  The disappeareance of h.264 from the web right now wouldn't be as disruptive as you think. Most mobile phones still use native players to play web video, and on the web, most web videos are still in Flash. I'd rather see a short term disruption anyway if that means making an open source video codec popular for the web. I still think Google needs to make Youtube work on WebM by default, and use Flash only as a fallback, if they are serious about pushing WebM. If they do that, most video websites will start using WebM overnight (granted it reaches the necessary quality by then).
wmf 15y ago
Motorola is asking crazy royalties for a bunch of its patents, not just on H.264. I think they're generally fishing for cross-licensing, not trying to attack H.264.
DarkShikari 15y ago
"For a $1,000 laptop, Motorola is demanding that Microsoft pay a royalty of $22.50 for its 50 patents on the video standard, called H.264." I find this doubtful; the licensing terms for H.264 put the per-unit hardware costs at around 10-20 cents depending on volume. I'm guessing the author misunderstands what's going here: the patents most likely cover related things, but not H.264 itself, or they're not "essential patents" as per the spec. It might also be possible that Microsoft doesn't license from the MPEG-LA, and rather licenses individual patents separately. An example of a company that claims to do this is Real, whose RealVideo is a blatant H.264 ripoff -- so they claim they license the relevant patents individually instead of the whole package. The alternative is that Motorola has done something that would probably get them permanently kicked out of all ITU standards bodies forever. Taking part in a standards body and then breaking the agreements signed during said process is not merely illegal, but probably grounds for every other company involved beating you to death with sharp sticks.
- othermaciej 15y ago
  That last alternative appears to be what Motorola is doing. I'm pretty sure Microsoft's executives are not confused on this point.
  - fpgeek 15y ago
    You're missing a subtle distinction. Motorola promised to license these patents on FRAND terms, but they are not part of the MPEG-LA or any other patent pool with respect to these patents (something which, AFAIK, is not required by any FRAND commitment). From what I've heard, Motorola's terms are non-discriminatory - they ask for the same schedule from everyone. So then the question turns on whether Motorola's terms are "fair" and "reasonable". On that point, I suspect the debate will be endless - especially once you include the issue of "fair" and "reasonable" treatment of past infringement (both of which Microsoft and Apple have to contend with).
    - othermaciej 15y ago
      It's not clear that they are asking the same royalty schedule of everyone for their FRAND patents. We only know what they said the cap would be, and what they asked of a few specific companies in some cases. And that cap seems to be out of line with industry norms for what is "reasonable". We also know that Motorola has taken at least one action that could be taken as discriminatory. Specifically they apparently licensed some 3G-related patents to Qualcomm including full rights for Qualcomm's customers to use those patents, then claimed to have terminated those patent rights with respect to Apple as a third-party beneficiary: <http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012/02/apples-us-antisuit-lawsuit-against.html> http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012/02/apples-us-antisuit-l....

by Zirro 15y ago

kevingadd 15y ago

Killing H264 is shortsighted and destructive since at present, there's no way Apple is ever going to drop H264 for WebM. All it accomplishes is fragmenting the web further and hurting end-users.

vibrunazo 15y ago
Why wouldn't Apple adopt Webm?
- othermaciej 15y ago
  Perhaps this very Microsoft blog post gives some insight into why an organization might hesitate to use a technology covered by Google-owned patents. (Google has promised to continue Motorola's policies on standards-essential patents, i.e., they will use them as a weapon.)
- mikeryan 15y ago
  First its an inferior codec (particularly when compared to h.264 main or high profile) Second its unclear if WebM is patent encumbered or not. AFAIK its not yet been tested but if this current battle heats up its likely to come under fire fast. Third you now have literally millions of mobile devices and other CE devices with built in H.264 hardware video decoders very few with built in WebM. A lot of folks haven't cared that H.264 is patent encumbered, they pay the licensing fees and go on their way with a very tried and true codec. Until now...
  - fpgeek 15y ago
    I suspect (but can't prove) that WebM is more battle-tested than you think. It has been shipping in Android phones since Gingerbread and it also ships in Chrome (which comes directly from Google). Those are big, fat juicy targets for anyone who thinks they have a patent that can take WebM down. No one has even tried. I wonder why? I suppose they might be laying low to get more WebM adoption and more potential damages, but how many millions of infringing instances can you want?
- dubya 15y ago
  They could, for future products, but I suspect that all current iDevices have hardware H264 decoding support, and no WebM decoding support. Meaning battery life or performance would suffer on the web, though it would still be fine for things obtained from itunes.
nextparadigms 15y ago
The disappeareance of h.264 from the web right now wouldn't be as disruptive as you think. Most mobile phones still use native players to play web video, and on the web, most web videos are still in Flash. I'd rather see a short term disruption anyway if that means making an open source video codec popular for the web. I still think Google needs to make Youtube work on WebM by default, and use Flash only as a fallback, if they are serious about pushing WebM. If they do that, most video websites will start using WebM overnight (granted it reaches the necessary quality by then).

wmf 15y ago

Motorola is asking crazy royalties for a bunch of its patents, not just on H.264. I think they're generally fishing for cross-licensing, not trying to attack H.264.

DarkShikari 15y ago

"For a $1,000 laptop, Motorola is demanding that Microsoft pay a royalty of $22.50 for its 50 patents on the video standard, called H.264." I find this doubtful; the licensing terms for H.264 put the per-unit hardware costs at around 10-20 cents depending on volume. I'm guessing the author misunderstands what's going here: the patents most likely cover related things, but not H.264 itself, or they're not "essential patents" as per the spec. It might also be possible that Microsoft doesn't license from the MPEG-LA, and rather licenses individual patents separately. An example of a company that claims to do this is Real, whose RealVideo is a blatant H.264 ripoff -- so they claim they license the relevant patents individually instead of the whole package. The alternative is that Motorola has done something that would probably get them permanently kicked out of all ITU standards bodies forever. Taking part in a standards body and then breaking the agreements signed during said process is not merely illegal, but probably grounds for every other company involved beating you to death with sharp sticks.

othermaciej 15y ago
That last alternative appears to be what Motorola is doing. I'm pretty sure Microsoft's executives are not confused on this point.
- fpgeek 15y ago
  You're missing a subtle distinction. Motorola promised to license these patents on FRAND terms, but they are not part of the MPEG-LA or any other patent pool with respect to these patents (something which, AFAIK, is not required by any FRAND commitment). From what I've heard, Motorola's terms are non-discriminatory - they ask for the same schedule from everyone. So then the question turns on whether Motorola's terms are "fair" and "reasonable". On that point, I suspect the debate will be endless - especially once you include the issue of "fair" and "reasonable" treatment of past infringement (both of which Microsoft and Apple have to contend with).
  - othermaciej 15y ago
    It's not clear that they are asking the same royalty schedule of everyone for their FRAND patents. We only know what they said the cap would be, and what they asked of a few specific companies in some cases. And that cap seems to be out of line with industry norms for what is "reasonable". We also know that Motorola has taken at least one action that could be taken as discriminatory. Specifically they apparently licensed some 3G-related patents to Qualcomm including full rights for Qualcomm's customers to use those patents, then claimed to have terminated those patent rights with respect to Apple as a third-party beneficiary: <http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012/02/apples-us-antisuit-lawsuit-against.html> http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012/02/apples-us-antisuit-l....