3 ms·
It'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.
by oliwarner 3y ago
It'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.