5 ms·
The license agreement also applies to future codecs derived from VP8, most specifically VP9, so I doubt the MPEG-LA thought it was giving a license to a dead ef
by fpgeek 14y ago
The license agreement also applies to future codecs derived from VP8, most specifically VP9, so I doubt the MPEG-LA thought it was giving a license to a dead effort.
- pja 14y agoPoint. I think the general thought still stands: Perhaps MPEG-LA believes they have now established h.26[45] strongly enough that VP9 will never be a threat. Of course, if we knew how much Google had actually paid for these patent licenses we'd have a much better idea of who, if anyone, had actually "won"! I doubt we'll get that information though.
- fpgeek 14y agoThe alleged infringement was massive - every download of Chrome 6+ and every Gingerbread+ Android device (or at least the ones with the Google apps) to start. And all of it could easily have been willful - On2 and MPEG-LA had apparently tangled long before Google got involved. Given that, I think not finding out financial terms is a tell all by itself. As I've said elsewhere in this thread, I don't think Google would be able to hide the cost of an MPEG-LA win in their earnings reports.
- randomfool 14y agoNot to mention that the free internet broadcast license of h264 expires in 2015. After that I am fairly sure that Google will be looking at hefty fees for YouTube if they do not convert over to VP8.
- ZeroGravitas 14y agoThe MPEG-LA extended that free licence to forever already due to the threat of vp8. And YouTube is already converted to VP8. On the other hand you still need to pay to sell TV shows and movies, which Google has just started rolling out as VP8 (starting with ChromeOS clients but expanding from there).
- fpgeek 14y agoGoogle Play Movies and TV is going VP8? Interesting.