3 ms·

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

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).
    - Sephr 14y ago
      > why would they stand to lose their patent license for WebM? From http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/ http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/ and http://www.webmproject.org/license/bitstream/ http://www.webmproject.org/license/bitstream/ > If you or your agent or exclusive licensee institute or order or agree to the institution of patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that this implementation of VP8 or any code incorporated within this implementation of VP8 constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, or inducement of patent infringement, then any patent rights granted to you under this License for this implementation of VP8 shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
      - tripzilch 14y ago
        Right. That explains that then, thx :) And somehow all these corporations (Samsung, Broadcom, etc) believe they have a claim to these patents? But it can at best be only one of them, right?
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  >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?) What are you talking about? Nobody is going to use a software encoder where they need a hardware encoder. The whole point of a hardware encoder is that doing it in software won't fit within your processor consumption or energy budget. And hardware manufacturers will be happy to sell VP8 hardware encoders to anyone who wants to buy one -- especially now that they know they won't have to pay MPEG-LA any royalties to do it.
  - thomholwerda 14y ago
    On top of that, Qualcomm and Broadcom are WebM supporters. http://www.webmproject.org/about/supporters/ http://www.webmproject.org/about/supporters/

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).
  - Sephr 14y ago
    > why would they stand to lose their patent license for WebM? From http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/ http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/ and http://www.webmproject.org/license/bitstream/ http://www.webmproject.org/license/bitstream/ > If you or your agent or exclusive licensee institute or order or agree to the institution of patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that this implementation of VP8 or any code incorporated within this implementation of VP8 constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, or inducement of patent infringement, then any patent rights granted to you under this License for this implementation of VP8 shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
    - tripzilch 14y ago
      Right. That explains that then, thx :) And somehow all these corporations (Samsung, Broadcom, etc) believe they have a claim to these patents? But it can at best be only one of them, right?
AnthonyMouse 14y ago
>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?) What are you talking about? Nobody is going to use a software encoder where they need a hardware encoder. The whole point of a hardware encoder is that doing it in software won't fit within your processor consumption or energy budget. And hardware manufacturers will be happy to sell VP8 hardware encoders to anyone who wants to buy one -- especially now that they know they won't have to pay MPEG-LA any royalties to do it.
- thomholwerda 14y ago
  On top of that, Qualcomm and Broadcom are WebM supporters. http://www.webmproject.org/about/supporters/ http://www.webmproject.org/about/supporters/