4 ms·

Google releases VP8 and VP9 with a patent and royalty free licence, so a potential patent threat will hardly come from them.

taligent 14y ago
Exactly the patent threat will come from the MPEG-LA or the members directly. Because if VP9 is indeed similar to H.265 then you I would imagine a patent is being infringed somewhere. And since Google doesn't provide patent indemnification you can guarantee that some big royalties will be demanded from users.
- shmerl 14y ago
  > Exactly the patent threat will come from the MPEG-LA or the members directly. Because if VP9 is indeed similar to H.265 Why would they design the codec to be vulnerable to patent attacks? VP8 was designed to work around threats from H.264. They surely applied the same logic for VP9 since they intend it for practical use and not as theoretical brain exercise. MPEG-LA spits threats all the time, including against Theora and VP8, but they have no teeth to bite.
- gillianseed 14y ago
  I bet you said the same thing back when VP8 was released, no such patent lawsuit has occured. Also, On2 which Google purchased holds lots of video compression patents, patents which codec's like h.264 and h.265 just as likely violates. MPEG-LA does not offer any patent indemnification either.
protomyth 14y ago
Motorola released their GSM required patents under FRAND licensing. Google buys Motorola and tries to use those same patents in a fight with Apple and Motorola (dragging Qualcomm in with them). Google has to agree with the FTC not to do that. Why would Apple or Microsoft believe Google's patent and royalty free license given their behavior with Motorola's prior promises?
- shmerl 14y ago
  Apple and MS just don't like open codecs, period. That's the whole reason they sabotage them. It's not about belief - it's about the struggle between closed and open.
  - protomyth 14y ago
    Apple and MS don't like legal uncertainty and additional risks in choosing technologies. Open never entered into it. People also forget some of the problem both companies had with MPEG-LA.
    - shmerl 14y ago
      That's bunk. H.264 has as much legal uncertainty as VP8. This didn't stop them from using it. Naturally they just have allergy on open codecs.
      - protomyth 14y ago
        H.264 has a group of companies and a lot of lawyers backing it up. VP8 has Google's word. It is not bunk and has nothing to do with open codecs.
        shmerl 14y ago
        > H.264 has a group of companies and a lot of lawyers backing it up. How can it help against some patent troll who can appear tomorrow and threaten H.264 users? No army of lawyers can help against that. So all this rhetoric is completely useless. Legally VP8 is as good as H.264. The only reason for them to avoid is to retain their monopolistic grip on codecs usage.
        protomyth 14y ago
        As opposed to handing a monopolistic grip to Google? A lot of money and a lot of lawyers can do a lot of vetting.

taligent 14y ago

Exactly the patent threat will come from the MPEG-LA or the members directly. Because if VP9 is indeed similar to H.265 then you I would imagine a patent is being infringed somewhere. And since Google doesn't provide patent indemnification you can guarantee that some big royalties will be demanded from users.

shmerl 14y ago
> Exactly the patent threat will come from the MPEG-LA or the members directly. Because if VP9 is indeed similar to H.265 Why would they design the codec to be vulnerable to patent attacks? VP8 was designed to work around threats from H.264. They surely applied the same logic for VP9 since they intend it for practical use and not as theoretical brain exercise. MPEG-LA spits threats all the time, including against Theora and VP8, but they have no teeth to bite.
gillianseed 14y ago
I bet you said the same thing back when VP8 was released, no such patent lawsuit has occured. Also, On2 which Google purchased holds lots of video compression patents, patents which codec's like h.264 and h.265 just as likely violates. MPEG-LA does not offer any patent indemnification either.

protomyth 14y ago

Motorola released their GSM required patents under FRAND licensing. Google buys Motorola and tries to use those same patents in a fight with Apple and Motorola (dragging Qualcomm in with them). Google has to agree with the FTC not to do that. Why would Apple or Microsoft believe Google's patent and royalty free license given their behavior with Motorola's prior promises?

shmerl 14y ago
Apple and MS just don't like open codecs, period. That's the whole reason they sabotage them. It's not about belief - it's about the struggle between closed and open.
- protomyth 14y ago
  Apple and MS don't like legal uncertainty and additional risks in choosing technologies. Open never entered into it. People also forget some of the problem both companies had with MPEG-LA.
  - shmerl 14y ago
    That's bunk. H.264 has as much legal uncertainty as VP8. This didn't stop them from using it. Naturally they just have allergy on open codecs.
    - protomyth 14y ago
      H.264 has a group of companies and a lot of lawyers backing it up. VP8 has Google's word. It is not bunk and has nothing to do with open codecs.
      - shmerl 14y ago
        > H.264 has a group of companies and a lot of lawyers backing it up. How can it help against some patent troll who can appear tomorrow and threaten H.264 users? No army of lawyers can help against that. So all this rhetoric is completely useless. Legally VP8 is as good as H.264. The only reason for them to avoid is to retain their monopolistic grip on codecs usage.
        protomyth 14y ago
        As opposed to handing a monopolistic grip to Google? A lot of money and a lot of lawyers can do a lot of vetting.