4 ms·

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

by 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?

by fpgeek 14y ago

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?