4 ms·
I'm not arguing either way but you can often only say "this isn't affected by any patents that we know of". Many are so obscure, generic and bloody-obvious tha
by oliwarner 3y ago
I'm not arguing either way but you can often only say "this isn't affected by any patents that we know of".
Many are so obscure, generic and bloody-obvious that they avoid basic searches. You don't hear about them until the troll comes for their take.
- mort96 3y agoYeah, so "JPEG XL might have patent issues" in itself is a statement which doesn't mean anything. So we either interpret it to mean, "JPEG XL is more likely to have patent issues than the alternatives (AVIF, WebP, whatever)", in which case capableweb's question is totally fair -- or we interpret it to be a bad-faith attempt at derailing the conversation.
- oliwarner 3y agoIt's not meaningless. Knowing there is good novel-feature coverage of patents and knowing you have permission for those patents is better. Webp is encumbered. Google owns many patents that cover Webp features. Google grants permission to use them (not that it needs them in its own product). That is all to say that it's not hard why someone at Google might prefer a technology they have explicit rights over.
- mort96 3y agoHow do we know that there are no non-Google patents which cover parts of WebP?
- oliwarner 3y agoSomebody with a good enough handle on things might be able to argue novel features in WebP are all covered by strong, first-party patents, and the tech that isn't new to WebP is so old and prior it's not a licensing issue.