5 ms·

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

by 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.
- tripzilch 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. I guess that's a matter of opinion then. Because if the person really didn't order (or receive) any meal, and they still had to pay anything to clear up matters, I wouldn't say they won. At most I'd say they got off relatively well, considering circumstances. The restaurant, however, getting any money for a meal they didn't make, is a clear winner. On the other hand (and I'm not sure how/if this holds up in the analogy because I'm not entirely clear about what's going on with the Google/MPEG-LA thing) if the restaurant did prepare the meal they claim the person ordered (but who didn't), assuming they got less than the costs of the meal, both are losers. Which figures because miscommunication often lead to waste.
randomfool 14y ago
The analogy breaks down when the agreement applies not only to Google, but also everyone else using VP8/9. So yeah, Google may have paid the restaurant for their meal but now everyone else who goes to that restaurant and orders the same thing now gets it for free. If you're hungry, I'd recommend ordering what Google ordered and eating for free.

by lnanek2 14y ago

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.

tripzilch 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. I guess that's a matter of opinion then. Because if the person really didn't order (or receive) any meal, and they still had to pay anything to clear up matters, I wouldn't say they won. At most I'd say they got off relatively well, considering circumstances. The restaurant, however, getting any money for a meal they didn't make, is a clear winner. On the other hand (and I'm not sure how/if this holds up in the analogy because I'm not entirely clear about what's going on with the Google/MPEG-LA thing) if the restaurant did prepare the meal they claim the person ordered (but who didn't), assuming they got less than the costs of the meal, both are losers. Which figures because miscommunication often lead to waste.

randomfool 14y ago

The analogy breaks down when the agreement applies not only to Google, but also everyone else using VP8/9. So yeah, Google may have paid the restaurant for their meal but now everyone else who goes to that restaurant and orders the same thing now gets it for free. If you're hungry, I'd recommend ordering what Google ordered and eating for free.