6 ms·

Google called the MPEG-LA's bluff, and won

140 points by thomholwerda 14y ago

TheZenPsycho 14y ago
haha this is absurd, and drawing the conclusion in the headline makes about as much sense as "Google admits its WebM (VP8) codec infringes MPEG H.264 patents; agrees to license technology" [1] It is so hard to take OSNews seriously. [1] http://macdailynews.com/2013/03/08/google-admits-its-webm-vp8-codec-infringes-mpeg-h-264-patents-agrees-to-license-technology/ http://macdailynews.com/2013/03/08/google-admits-its-webm-vp...
- rlanday 14y ago
  I think the article you linked is a pretty reasonable interpretation. Google was claiming VP8 didn’t infringe any patents they didn’t own, which apparently wasn’t the case, and now they’re having to backpedal and say, “well, it did infringe them, but we’re covering the licensing.” My understanding is that MPEG-LA does not engage in “patent trolling,” but exists to provide an easy way to license all the (known) patents. I think it would be up to the individual patent holders to try to sue for infringement. I think Daniel Eran Dilger is spot-on here; there’s been a lot of misinformation being spread by some proponents of free video codecs, first that Theora is good or almost as good as H.264 based on some crappy codec comparisons (it’s not), and then that VP8 was not patent-encumbered. I recall thinking the situation with VP8 when Google first released it for free kind of seemed to me like a “turd sandwich,” since the quality was somewhere between slightly inferior and very inferior (due to a bad encoder) to H.264, and the licensing was uncertain, despite Google’s claims.
  - TheZenPsycho 14y ago
    It seems that google's position is firmly that this agreement is not an admission that they infringed any patents. That said, it's a pretty funny statement coming from an entity that just paid for patent licensing. The tricky thing about the situation is that the details of the agreement aren't clear enough to say who "won", and personally, it looks to me more like a stalemate. Even stalemate might be putting it strongly, as it implies that they are in some kind of opposition, which may not be the case.
    - ratherbefuddled 14y ago
      "Paid for" is an assumption isn't it?
      - TheZenPsycho 14y ago
        Oh you're right. It seems they are being tight lipped about whether money was exchanged.
  - corresation 14y ago
    Google was claiming VP8 didn’t infringe any patents they didn’t own, which apparently wasn’t the case, and now they’re having to backpedal and say, “well, it did infringe them, but we’re covering the licensing.” VP8 saw little market acceptance because of the legal threats of MPEG-LA (did that consortium ever actual detail specific "infringed" patents? The last I saw they just made blanket statements that there must be something). So Google paid them protection money. By no analysis does this mean that they admit infringing of anything, and such an analysis of legal agreements is woefully naive.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
buster 14y ago
It's a shame. As much as i wish this headline would be true, it does only seem to me that Google bent to MPEG-LAs will, a conglomerate of Apple, MS and what not.. From my point of view, the MPEG-LA needs to be shut down, not subsidized with more money. It shows every sign of a typical patent troll and will always choose the option that guarantees its members income, not the most innovative or best option, but the one where there the most money can be leeched out of people and companies.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- TheZenPsycho 14y ago
  "Google comes to comprimise agreement with MPEG-LA which satisfies no-one's tribal blood lust."
  - gngeal 14y ago
    It's like negotiating with a terrorist.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- lttlrck 14y ago
  Shutting down the MPEG-LA is an absurd idea. Instead of one point of contact every licensee would have to deal with each patent holder individually raising the cost further and increasing the chance of litigation down the road. The reality is it has helped Google and many other companies adopt MPEG tech.
  - buster 14y ago
    Not an absurd idea. The problem is the company and money driven structure not the MPEG-LA per se. Replace it with a consortium that has a general interest in innovation and not money.
mtgx 14y ago
Regardless of whether Google "won" or not, it does look like VP8 will be a much more approachable codec thanks to being open source, and because it doesn't require video makers to pay MPEG-LA license fees whenever they want to make money from their videos. I'd think at the very least professional camera makers would be interested in supporting it. From that point of view, I think the article is right.
- Supermighty 14y ago
  The real win will come if Google is able to have VP8 adopted as an MPEG standard, like the article states.
- anon1385 14y ago
  >it does look like VP8 will be a much more approachable codec thanks to being open source How is VP8 'open source'? It is a standard. There exist open source implementation(s). However there are open source implementations of H.264 decoders and encoders as well, it even has a reference implementation [1] that anybody can use[2] (patent issues aside, but (understandably) very few open source projects offer the users patent indemnification). Is it any wonder that most non-tech people are confused about these issues when even people in the tech community don't seem to understand the differences between standards and implementations, between 'open source' and 'free as in beer' and between secret proprietary formats and open standards? Sadly we seem to be at a point where 'open', 'standard' and 'free' are just words thrown about to mean 'something I like'. [1] http://iphome.hhi.de/suehring/tml/download/ http://iphome.hhi.de/suehring/tml/download/ [2] http://iphome.hhi.de/suehring/tml/download/COPYRIGHT_ISO_IEC.txt http://iphome.hhi.de/suehring/tml/download/COPYRIGHT_ISO_IEC...
- rmc 14y ago
  thanks to being open source Something can be open source and still have patent threats. That's one of the big differences between patents and copyright. If I go into a room and don't talk to anyone and independently write some software, then no-one can sue me for copyright infringement, but they might be able to sue me for patent infringment.
- gillianseed 14y ago
thefreeman 14y ago
I don't understand why so many comments are painting this as bad. Who cares if Google paid a shitload of money to MPEG-LA. The main point is, VP8 is now free for anyone to use, for any reason. Wasn't that the goal?
- Supermighty 14y ago
  It's a real technical "win", but it doesn't look that way. It's just a marketing problem now. Google needs to spend their resources pushing VP8 into everything now.
- Jabbles 14y ago
  No, VP8 is not necessarily "free", there are numerous companies that may wish to sue the users of VP8 over patent infringement. Qualcomm, Broadcom, Samsung etc. (Why would you want a free alternative when you're the only few companies that can make hardware encoders?) Companies that are in MPEG-LA won't sue, but there are many "relevant" companies that have not joined. Companies are still being sued (and settling) over patents supposedly infringed by H.264. The system is a mess. Google are moving in the right direction by eliminating a large potential threat (MPEG-LA), but it's job is not done yet. Note that Google pushing VP8/9 is trying to promote competition and reduce the licencing costs of H.264/5. This is very similar to what Microsoft (rightly) did before with VC-1.
  - fpgeek 14y ago
    Samsung couldn't sue - they've already shipped hundreds of millions of WebM implementations that they lose their patent license for if they do. Depending on how much WebM-related code ended up in their graphics drivers and/or how widely distributed their Android reference platforms are, Qualcomm could easily face similar issues. And well, um, Google has also clearly taken care of a third major H.264 patent holder outside the MPEG-LA - Motorola. I'm sure there are others out there, but the pickings are getting thinner and thinner.
    - tripzilch 14y ago
      > Samsung couldn't sue - they've already shipped hundreds of millions of WebM implementations that they lose their patent license for if they do. I don't understand, why would they stand to lose their patent license for WebM? It says on Wikipedia about WebM that "The project releases WebM related software under a BSD license and all users are granted a worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free patent license" so how can anyone lose the right to that license? And given that the above WP quote is in fact true, what would Samsung sue over in the first place? > And well, um, Google has also clearly taken care of a third major H.264 patent holder outside the MPEG-LA - Motorola. Because, what did they do to Motorola then? Would I be sort of correct in saying this whole matter is more about power/politics between these big corporations (using patents as leverage) than it is about the actual legality of who is doing what with whose algorithms--in the sense that they do use these legal tactics to attain their goals but the usual goal (justice) is secondary? That'd explain why it's so confusing to me, laws are usually quite logical (especially the codified type), but politics and power gets really complex really fast (to me).
kenjackson 14y ago
Saying that Google "won" is an absurd statement. What was the competition? What Google did was smart. The fear of patent infringement was likely the biggest issue VP8 had. They've taken that off the table. But saying they've won seems to imply that someone lost. MPEG-LA didn't have to make a deal with them. But they got enough money that is was worth it to them. As far as they're concerned they get money from Google now, plus all the fees from everyone else. That's a "win" for MPEG-LA. Both Apple and MS pay for H264. I'm sure both would be happy to not have to pay for a codec (although H264 will be around for a long time, even in the worst case). Microsoft's position on VP8 has been pretty clear... they're not shipping it (but maybe will now), but aren't opposed to it. This was a smart move. But doesn't mean that there are winners and losers. And certainly there was no bluff that was called. Paying to license patents from a patent holder is hardly calling their bluff.
- thomholwerda 14y ago
  VP8 went from (according to the MPEG-LA and its proponents) legally dangerous to a better option (at least legally) than H.264, covering more users and more usage scenarios (namely, not just non-commercial, but commercial too), and for free to users, to boot. So yes, VP8 (and thus Google) won.
  - lnanek2 14y ago
    That's like saying someone claimed they didn't order something at a restaurant while the restaurant claimed they did. The person pays anyway and the restaurant is happy and they don't get in trouble. Did the person win? Google has claimed for a long time VP8 was clear of patents. This is them giving up.
    - fpgeek 14y ago
      Doesn't it depend on how much they paid? If the person paid for much less than the restaurant was asking and/or for less than a court case would cost, I'd say they won. And as long as the size of Google's MPEG-LA payment isn't visible in their next earnings report (remember the MPEG-LA was claiming hundreds of millions of willful infringements), I'd say Google won, too.
darkchasma 14y ago
Meanwhile, in reality, everyone is using H.264. Seems like a lot of wasted effort to me.
- tripzilch 14y ago
  Well, next up is Google paying off the Scene to drop H.264 and switch to VP8 :)
codex 14y ago
TL;DR Google gave MPEG-LA a bunch of money. Yep, Google sure showed them!
- pja 14y ago
  If Google have MPEG-LA $1million just to go away, then yes they probably won. A single patent case defence would cost them at least that much, plus they get to inoculate VP8 and VP9 against MPEG-LA patent pool FUD PR. Without knowing the amounts involved, it's impossible to really say who "won". Google obviously got what they wanted: indemnity for the MPEG-LA patent pool for VP8 and future codecs based on it. Maybe that cost them $1billion, maybe it cost them $1million: we don't know.
  - yardie 14y ago
    Maybe I came from a different era, but the party that pays is generally considered the loser. Strategically, Google and MPEG-LA one. Google got the indemnification they swear they didn't need, and MPEG-LA got money and further proof that their patents were that strong that not even the mighty Google could ignore it. This is the same strategy patent troll, rent seekers use. It doesn't matter if they get $1 or $1mm from Microsoft or Apple. To everyone outside the negotiations they are clearly the winner no matter how flimsy the evidence looks.
    - hahainternet 14y ago
      > Maybe I came from a different era, but the party that pays is generally considered the loser Or maybe you're talking absolute nonsense as you clearly don't understand what the agreement is about.
- DannyBee 14y ago
  You misunderstand the nature of the agreement. Please point to a case where MPEG-LA has given a completely sublicensable royalty-free right to someone for H.264, for any amount of money. Can you get all the H.264 rights MPEG-LA offers from microsoft or apple, without going through MPEG-LA? Does it cover all use cases?
drucken 14y ago
How does agreeing with a random third-party about how you can use your own product, and worse, paying them for the mere unproven possibility that they own parts of your product, count as "won"? In any other situation, history would classify this as a clear cut case of racketeering or extortion.
- rdtsc 14y ago
  Yes I am still waiting for that answer. Maybe I am being dense but to me this is not a victory? If anything seems like a loss? In other words suspicions now are founded that VP8 was never free of patent infringement.
  - mjg59 14y ago
    It's arguably a victory within the existing rules of the game. Taking it to an extreme - if Google paid a single cent in order to remove the threat of MPEG-LA related patent suits and in return massively increased adoption of VP8 and following specs, would that have been a victory? A dollar? Ten dollars? A million dollars? It's a victory for Google if the cost to them is less than the expected benefits of removing a barrier to adoption. Of course, the flipside to this is that it's also a victory for the existing patent system. It's usually cheaper for people to settle than it is for them to fight a patent suit, even if they win. At the end you maybe get most of your costs back, and it's cost you several years of your competitors telling your potential customers that you're a patent infringer and if they implement the spec they could be next. So yes, a real victory would require certainty over the patent status of VP8 without Google having had to pay anyone anything, but also without having to spend years in litigation to prove that. But that's not an option at the moment, and the fact that Google were able to negotiate a relatively wide-ranging and liberal license (without any admission of infringement) is arguably the best that's possible without significant changes in the law.
runn1ng 14y ago
If you cut the crap, does this mean VP8 is safe to use for everyone for free (without royalties to either MPEG-LA or Google) or not?
- Tloewald 14y ago
  Safe except for not working in most places you care about.
josephlord 14y ago
I know many here don't like/trust Florian Mueller but he is claiming that Nokia (not part of MPEG-LA patent pools for either VP8 or AVC) is currently suing HTC for patent infringement regarding VP8 in Germany. Google is acting as an intervenor. Assuming this is correct (and I have no reason to doubt it) VP8 is not in the clear just yet and Nokia did not participate in the standardisation so is not committed to FRAND licensing. It is obviously possible that the court could rule the patent is either invalid or not infringed but I think it would be wise to avoid counting chickens just yet (unless anyone has good alternative and contradictory sources on this). http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/patent-clouds-remain-over-vp8-google.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/patent-clouds-remain-over...
tomflack 14y ago
Will google now follow through and remove H.264 support from chrome?(1) (1) http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2011/01/google-reveals-plan-to-remove-h264-support-from-chrome/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2011/01/google...

140 points by thomholwerda 14y ago

haha this is absurd, and drawing the conclusion in the headline makes about as much sense as "Google admits its WebM (VP8) codec infringes MPEG H.264 patents; agrees to license technology" [1] It is so hard to take OSNews seriously. [1] http://macdailynews.com/2013/03/08/google-admits-its-webm-vp8-codec-infringes-mpeg-h-264-patents-agrees-to-license-technology/ http://macdailynews.com/2013/03/08/google-admits-its-webm-vp...

rlanday 14y ago
I think the article you linked is a pretty reasonable interpretation. Google was claiming VP8 didn’t infringe any patents they didn’t own, which apparently wasn’t the case, and now they’re having to backpedal and say, “well, it did infringe them, but we’re covering the licensing.” My understanding is that MPEG-LA does not engage in “patent trolling,” but exists to provide an easy way to license all the (known) patents. I think it would be up to the individual patent holders to try to sue for infringement. I think Daniel Eran Dilger is spot-on here; there’s been a lot of misinformation being spread by some proponents of free video codecs, first that Theora is good or almost as good as H.264 based on some crappy codec comparisons (it’s not), and then that VP8 was not patent-encumbered. I recall thinking the situation with VP8 when Google first released it for free kind of seemed to me like a “turd sandwich,” since the quality was somewhere between slightly inferior and very inferior (due to a bad encoder) to H.264, and the licensing was uncertain, despite Google’s claims.
- TheZenPsycho 14y ago
  It seems that google's position is firmly that this agreement is not an admission that they infringed any patents. That said, it's a pretty funny statement coming from an entity that just paid for patent licensing. The tricky thing about the situation is that the details of the agreement aren't clear enough to say who "won", and personally, it looks to me more like a stalemate. Even stalemate might be putting it strongly, as it implies that they are in some kind of opposition, which may not be the case.
  - ratherbefuddled 14y ago
    "Paid for" is an assumption isn't it?
    - TheZenPsycho 14y ago
      Oh you're right. It seems they are being tight lipped about whether money was exchanged.
- corresation 14y ago
  Google was claiming VP8 didn’t infringe any patents they didn’t own, which apparently wasn’t the case, and now they’re having to backpedal and say, “well, it did infringe them, but we’re covering the licensing.” VP8 saw little market acceptance because of the legal threats of MPEG-LA (did that consortium ever actual detail specific "infringed" patents? The last I saw they just made blanket statements that there must be something). So Google paid them protection money. By no analysis does this mean that they admit infringing of anything, and such an analysis of legal agreements is woefully naive.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

buster 14y ago

It's a shame. As much as i wish this headline would be true, it does only seem to me that Google bent to MPEG-LAs will, a conglomerate of Apple, MS and what not.. From my point of view, the MPEG-LA needs to be shut down, not subsidized with more money. It shows every sign of a typical patent troll and will always choose the option that guarantees its members income, not the most innovative or best option, but the one where there the most money can be leeched out of people and companies.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
TheZenPsycho 14y ago
"Google comes to comprimise agreement with MPEG-LA which satisfies no-one's tribal blood lust."
- gngeal 14y ago
  It's like negotiating with a terrorist.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
lttlrck 14y ago
Shutting down the MPEG-LA is an absurd idea. Instead of one point of contact every licensee would have to deal with each patent holder individually raising the cost further and increasing the chance of litigation down the road. The reality is it has helped Google and many other companies adopt MPEG tech.
- buster 14y ago
  Not an absurd idea. The problem is the company and money driven structure not the MPEG-LA per se. Replace it with a consortium that has a general interest in innovation and not money.

mtgx 14y ago

Regardless of whether Google "won" or not, it does look like VP8 will be a much more approachable codec thanks to being open source, and because it doesn't require video makers to pay MPEG-LA license fees whenever they want to make money from their videos. I'd think at the very least professional camera makers would be interested in supporting it. From that point of view, I think the article is right.

Supermighty 14y ago
The real win will come if Google is able to have VP8 adopted as an MPEG standard, like the article states.
anon1385 14y ago
>it does look like VP8 will be a much more approachable codec thanks to being open source How is VP8 'open source'? It is a standard. There exist open source implementation(s). However there are open source implementations of H.264 decoders and encoders as well, it even has a reference implementation [1] that anybody can use[2] (patent issues aside, but (understandably) very few open source projects offer the users patent indemnification). Is it any wonder that most non-tech people are confused about these issues when even people in the tech community don't seem to understand the differences between standards and implementations, between 'open source' and 'free as in beer' and between secret proprietary formats and open standards? Sadly we seem to be at a point where 'open', 'standard' and 'free' are just words thrown about to mean 'something I like'. [1] http://iphome.hhi.de/suehring/tml/download/ http://iphome.hhi.de/suehring/tml/download/ [2] http://iphome.hhi.de/suehring/tml/download/COPYRIGHT_ISO_IEC.txt http://iphome.hhi.de/suehring/tml/download/COPYRIGHT_ISO_IEC...
rmc 14y ago
thanks to being open source Something can be open source and still have patent threats. That's one of the big differences between patents and copyright. If I go into a room and don't talk to anyone and independently write some software, then no-one can sue me for copyright infringement, but they might be able to sue me for patent infringment.
gillianseed 14y ago

thefreeman 14y ago

I don't understand why so many comments are painting this as bad. Who cares if Google paid a shitload of money to MPEG-LA. The main point is, VP8 is now free for anyone to use, for any reason. Wasn't that the goal?

Supermighty 14y ago
It's a real technical "win", but it doesn't look that way. It's just a marketing problem now. Google needs to spend their resources pushing VP8 into everything now.
Jabbles 14y ago
No, VP8 is not necessarily "free", there are numerous companies that may wish to sue the users of VP8 over patent infringement. Qualcomm, Broadcom, Samsung etc. (Why would you want a free alternative when you're the only few companies that can make hardware encoders?) Companies that are in MPEG-LA won't sue, but there are many "relevant" companies that have not joined. Companies are still being sued (and settling) over patents supposedly infringed by H.264. The system is a mess. Google are moving in the right direction by eliminating a large potential threat (MPEG-LA), but it's job is not done yet. Note that Google pushing VP8/9 is trying to promote competition and reduce the licencing costs of H.264/5. This is very similar to what Microsoft (rightly) did before with VC-1.
- fpgeek 14y ago
  Samsung couldn't sue - they've already shipped hundreds of millions of WebM implementations that they lose their patent license for if they do. Depending on how much WebM-related code ended up in their graphics drivers and/or how widely distributed their Android reference platforms are, Qualcomm could easily face similar issues. And well, um, Google has also clearly taken care of a third major H.264 patent holder outside the MPEG-LA - Motorola. I'm sure there are others out there, but the pickings are getting thinner and thinner.
  - tripzilch 14y ago
    > Samsung couldn't sue - they've already shipped hundreds of millions of WebM implementations that they lose their patent license for if they do. I don't understand, why would they stand to lose their patent license for WebM? It says on Wikipedia about WebM that "The project releases WebM related software under a BSD license and all users are granted a worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free patent license" so how can anyone lose the right to that license? And given that the above WP quote is in fact true, what would Samsung sue over in the first place? > And well, um, Google has also clearly taken care of a third major H.264 patent holder outside the MPEG-LA - Motorola. Because, what did they do to Motorola then? Would I be sort of correct in saying this whole matter is more about power/politics between these big corporations (using patents as leverage) than it is about the actual legality of who is doing what with whose algorithms--in the sense that they do use these legal tactics to attain their goals but the usual goal (justice) is secondary? That'd explain why it's so confusing to me, laws are usually quite logical (especially the codified type), but politics and power gets really complex really fast (to me).

kenjackson 14y ago

Saying that Google "won" is an absurd statement. What was the competition? What Google did was smart. The fear of patent infringement was likely the biggest issue VP8 had. They've taken that off the table. But saying they've won seems to imply that someone lost. MPEG-LA didn't have to make a deal with them. But they got enough money that is was worth it to them. As far as they're concerned they get money from Google now, plus all the fees from everyone else. That's a "win" for MPEG-LA. Both Apple and MS pay for H264. I'm sure both would be happy to not have to pay for a codec (although H264 will be around for a long time, even in the worst case). Microsoft's position on VP8 has been pretty clear... they're not shipping it (but maybe will now), but aren't opposed to it. This was a smart move. But doesn't mean that there are winners and losers. And certainly there was no bluff that was called. Paying to license patents from a patent holder is hardly calling their bluff.

thomholwerda 14y ago
VP8 went from (according to the MPEG-LA and its proponents) legally dangerous to a better option (at least legally) than H.264, covering more users and more usage scenarios (namely, not just non-commercial, but commercial too), and for free to users, to boot. So yes, VP8 (and thus Google) won.
- lnanek2 14y ago
  That's like saying someone claimed they didn't order something at a restaurant while the restaurant claimed they did. The person pays anyway and the restaurant is happy and they don't get in trouble. Did the person win? Google has claimed for a long time VP8 was clear of patents. This is them giving up.
  - fpgeek 14y ago
    Doesn't it depend on how much they paid? If the person paid for much less than the restaurant was asking and/or for less than a court case would cost, I'd say they won. And as long as the size of Google's MPEG-LA payment isn't visible in their next earnings report (remember the MPEG-LA was claiming hundreds of millions of willful infringements), I'd say Google won, too.

darkchasma 14y ago

Meanwhile, in reality, everyone is using H.264. Seems like a lot of wasted effort to me.

tripzilch 14y ago
Well, next up is Google paying off the Scene to drop H.264 and switch to VP8 :)

codex 14y ago

TL;DR Google gave MPEG-LA a bunch of money. Yep, Google sure showed them!

pja 14y ago
If Google have MPEG-LA $1million just to go away, then yes they probably won. A single patent case defence would cost them at least that much, plus they get to inoculate VP8 and VP9 against MPEG-LA patent pool FUD PR. Without knowing the amounts involved, it's impossible to really say who "won". Google obviously got what they wanted: indemnity for the MPEG-LA patent pool for VP8 and future codecs based on it. Maybe that cost them $1billion, maybe it cost them $1million: we don't know.
- yardie 14y ago
  Maybe I came from a different era, but the party that pays is generally considered the loser. Strategically, Google and MPEG-LA one. Google got the indemnification they swear they didn't need, and MPEG-LA got money and further proof that their patents were that strong that not even the mighty Google could ignore it. This is the same strategy patent troll, rent seekers use. It doesn't matter if they get $1 or $1mm from Microsoft or Apple. To everyone outside the negotiations they are clearly the winner no matter how flimsy the evidence looks.
  - hahainternet 14y ago
    > Maybe I came from a different era, but the party that pays is generally considered the loser Or maybe you're talking absolute nonsense as you clearly don't understand what the agreement is about.
DannyBee 14y ago
You misunderstand the nature of the agreement. Please point to a case where MPEG-LA has given a completely sublicensable royalty-free right to someone for H.264, for any amount of money. Can you get all the H.264 rights MPEG-LA offers from microsoft or apple, without going through MPEG-LA? Does it cover all use cases?

drucken 14y ago

How does agreeing with a random third-party about how you can use your own product, and worse, paying them for the mere unproven possibility that they own parts of your product, count as "won"? In any other situation, history would classify this as a clear cut case of racketeering or extortion.

rdtsc 14y ago
Yes I am still waiting for that answer. Maybe I am being dense but to me this is not a victory? If anything seems like a loss? In other words suspicions now are founded that VP8 was never free of patent infringement.
- mjg59 14y ago
  It's arguably a victory within the existing rules of the game. Taking it to an extreme - if Google paid a single cent in order to remove the threat of MPEG-LA related patent suits and in return massively increased adoption of VP8 and following specs, would that have been a victory? A dollar? Ten dollars? A million dollars? It's a victory for Google if the cost to them is less than the expected benefits of removing a barrier to adoption. Of course, the flipside to this is that it's also a victory for the existing patent system. It's usually cheaper for people to settle than it is for them to fight a patent suit, even if they win. At the end you maybe get most of your costs back, and it's cost you several years of your competitors telling your potential customers that you're a patent infringer and if they implement the spec they could be next. So yes, a real victory would require certainty over the patent status of VP8 without Google having had to pay anyone anything, but also without having to spend years in litigation to prove that. But that's not an option at the moment, and the fact that Google were able to negotiate a relatively wide-ranging and liberal license (without any admission of infringement) is arguably the best that's possible without significant changes in the law.

runn1ng 14y ago

If you cut the crap, does this mean VP8 is safe to use for everyone for free (without royalties to either MPEG-LA or Google) or not?

Tloewald 14y ago
Safe except for not working in most places you care about.

josephlord 14y ago

I know many here don't like/trust Florian Mueller but he is claiming that Nokia (not part of MPEG-LA patent pools for either VP8 or AVC) is currently suing HTC for patent infringement regarding VP8 in Germany. Google is acting as an intervenor. Assuming this is correct (and I have no reason to doubt it) VP8 is not in the clear just yet and Nokia did not participate in the standardisation so is not committed to FRAND licensing. It is obviously possible that the court could rule the patent is either invalid or not infringed but I think it would be wise to avoid counting chickens just yet (unless anyone has good alternative and contradictory sources on this). http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/patent-clouds-remain-over-vp8-google.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/patent-clouds-remain-over...

tomflack 14y ago

Will google now follow through and remove H.264 support from chrome?(1) (1) http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2011/01/google-reveals-plan-to-remove-h264-support-from-chrome/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2011/01/google...