Google has a long history of not respecting iP law
Really? You made me curious. Can you point a single case of Google being sued and condemned or settled a deal for infringing patents? Just one.
Big tech companies are sued for patent infringement all the time. For example, Google is being sued by Oracle right now, Apple is being sued by Nokia and Motorola right now, Microsoft had several famous cases, and the list goes on.
Now, let's be objective: which cases can you name of Google being convicted for "not respecting iP law" gave the right to call it "a long history"?
Really? You made me curious. Can you point a single case of Google being sued and condemned or settled a deal for infringing patents? Just one.
Big tech companies are sued for patent infringement all the time. For example, Google is being sued by Oracle right now, Apple is being sued by Nokia and Motorola right now, Microsoft had several famous cases, and the list goes on.
Now, let's be objective: which cases can you name of Google being convicted for "not respecting iP law" gave the right to call it "a long history"?
The Google Books Program, for one. Also, they will lose the Android case.
H.264 isn't open because it is not royalty-free. That was said already.
No, what H.264 is not is "free as in beer". It is entirely open, and you'e free to use it to your heart's content. It is also an Industry Standard controlled by a co-operative joint venture consisting of the vast majority of the industry. webM is a proprietary codec offering free as in beer access to the source code. It is not a standard - almost nobody uses it and it is still technically proprietary - and it's definitely not open, since instead of turning over control to a standards body (Heck, turning it over to W3C would go a long way to convincing me Google are not acting maliciously), Google are maintaining control themselves.
What you webM advocates seem to not understand is that by backing Google on this, you're not backing an Open Web. Your backing Google's attempt to control the web. This is coming from someone who has been unashamedly pro-Google (I happily use their services literally every day, and maintain their Search is the best by lightyears): Google is not your friend. They have their own interests, just like Apple and just like Microsoft. In fact, Google's are even more out of step with yours, you're not their customer. They give stuff like webM and Android away free to users and partners and earn their money from their customers, the advertisers.
Apple and Microsoft, at least, have to at least try and look out for the interests of their users.
Google don't own the Web and they certainly don't have any right to control video, an area where their expertise is limited to having acquired the (Admittedly) breakout video hosting Startup. It may be the biggest, but it's not the only and it's not unassailable.
Put it this way, if I was Google and so I was running YouTube, I'd be living in constant fear of Facebook too.
Bottom line, if Google's really looking out for the open web, then they should turn over control of webM to W3C, get it ratified as a standard, and indemnify users against patent lawsuits - and continue to support H.264 in Chrome. They already did the work, taking it out is anti-consumer. But like I said, Google doesn't care about consumers.
H.264 is an open standard under the accepted definition of what an open standard is. The W3C patent policy doesn't change that and the fact that they have decided not to specify codecs makes it entirely irrelevant since there will be no standard codec.
Once again: What does the W3C Patent Policy say about standards that are not royalty-free? You yourself tried to lecture someone else about context. The context is the web!
Quote:
It's entirely to the point. Google has shown that it is an outlaw company that does not respect intellectual property law. Therefore, they cannot be trusted when they say something doesn't violate that law: they claim nothing they do violates the law and they've misled the public on it in cases where they were clearly in violation of the law. Simply, they have no credibility left.
No, it's just more FUD. You are desperate.
Quote:
W3C Widgets have no bearing on that issue, which you clearly either don't understand or wish to dance around by bringing in irrelevant side topics to confuse the issue.
W3C Widgets are relevant because your logic dictates that the situation there means that Apple hates open standards and always tries to block them.
Quote:
No, what promotes an open web is to not allow companies like Microsoft (IE), Adobe (Flash) and Google (where to begin, but WebM in this instance) exercise control over the technology and data of the Web.
Ah, but you want the MPEG-LA to exercise control over technology and data on the web. Hypocrite, much?
Quote:
H.264, which is an open standard, no matter how many times you deny that it is, that promotes an open Web, and has been embraced by an open Web.
Wrong. Read the W3C Patent Policy. Did you read it yet?
Quote:
WebM is nothing but a power play by Google to control the Web, and make it less open, less free, and more their private property.
WebM is an open-source project, and Google has given it away for free.
Quote:
Interestingly, sabotaging the open Web with WebM fits nicely into the strategy they revealed when they conspired with Verizon to sabotage net neutrality. Part of a pattern and entirely relevant to the discussion.
Really? You made me curious. Can you point a single case of Google being sued and condemned or settled a deal for infringing patents? Just one.
First, IP is a catch-all that combines trademarks, copyrights and patents. Narrowing your response to only cover patents doesn't change the fact that Google had to settle out and alter their behavior with books.
Also, take a look at the Overture lawsuit against Google, which was about patents covering web ads.
Google making WebM available free, WITHOUT PATENT INDEMNIFICATION, should tell everyone all they need to know about WebM.
Havent though of it before, but you hit the nail for me here! I remember being threatened by a competing patented technology a few years ago. They went after all my customers. To relieve my customers of the threat I had to - in contract - indemnify them of any costs. And it went to court. We won. My customers were happy. My partner had to pay all costs for trials. Not the customers.
Google - if you are a good supplier of the platforms you develop, include indemnification in the licensing terms. It's kind of a no brainer. If you are sure their is none, then there's no threat.
No, what H.264 is not is "free as in beer". It is entirely open, and you'e free to use it to your heart's content.
No, it is not entirely open. It is restricted by patents. It is patent-encumbered.
Quote:
It is also an Industry Standard controlled by a co-operative joint venture consisting of the vast majority of the industry.
Irrelevant. Still not open.
Quote:
webM is a proprietary codec offering free as in beer access to the source code.
Actually, WebM is not proprietary. It's an open-source project.
Quote:
It is not a standard
Irrelevant. HTML5 is not a standard (yet) either.
Quote:
almost nobody uses it
The same goes for HTML5. You are saying that people should give up on HTML5. Good one!
Quote:
it's definitely not open, since instead of turning over control to a standards body (Heck, turning it over to W3C would go a long way to convincing me Google are not acting maliciously), Google are maintaining control themselves.
Actually, it's an open-source project, and Google gave out the rights of all patents for free, and irrevocably.
Quote:
What you webM advocates seem to not understand is that by backing Google on this, you're not backing an Open Web. Your backing Google's attempt to control the web.
No, not at all. Just because you hate Google doesn't mean that everything they do is wrong.
Quote:
This is coming from someone who has been unashamedly pro-Google (I happily use their services literally every day, and maintain their Search is the best by lightyears): Google is not your friend.
And now you are an Apple fanboy, and you fear competition from Google. A bit pathetic, really.
Quote:
Apple and Microsoft, at least, have to at least try and look out for the interests of their users.
You are sinking deeper into insanity now...
Quote:
Bottom line, if Google's really looking out for the open web, then they should turn over control of webM to W3C, get it ratified as a standard, and indemnify users against patent lawsuits - and continue to support H.264 in Chrome. They already did the work, taking it out is anti-consumer. But like I said, Google doesn't care about consumers.
You are talking pure and utter nonsense. WebM is run as an open-source project. Google has issued an irrevocable license. Even the MPEG-LA doesn't indemnify against patent lawsuits. H264 is a threat to the open web.
You are nothing but a hypocritical Apple fanboy spreading FUD.
Google - if you are a good supplier of the platforms you develop, include indemnification in the licensing terms. It's kind of a no brainer. If you are sure their is none, then there's no threat.
Like the MPEG-LA fails to indemnify its members?
And why would Google offer indemnity when WebM is a separate open-source project?
Fair, they were condemned at least in France, payed and had to step back. Not sure if this warrants you the right to call it a "long history", specially because we are talking about patents and there's no single big tech company not being sued for a patent infringement or another.
If we consider when Apple was first sued for patent infringement, the result will be that Apple has a much longer history of "IP infringement", just because it is older. Nonsense, right? I agree. Patent fights are common in the industry because big tech companies use them to exchange technology ("let me use it or I sue you") or defend themselves from other patent infringement accusations ("you don't sue me, I don't sue you"). Or for just trolling or generating FUD. Nasty terrain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Also, they will lose the Android case.
Questionable, but totally irrelevant to the topic of open web.
Once again: What does the W3C Patent Policy say about standards that are not royalty-free? You yourself tried to lecture someone else about context. The context is the web!
No, it's just more FUD. You are desperate.
W3C Widgets are relevant because your logic dictates that the situation there means that Apple hates open standards and always tries to block them.
Ah, but you want the MPEG-LA to exercise control over technology and data on the web. Hypocrite, much?
Wrong. Read the W3C Patent Policy. Did you read it yet?
WebM is an open-source project, and Google has given it away for free.
FUD, FUD, FUD. You are really desperate.
Well, if it's FUD, FUD, FUD, and I'm "desperate" why don't you refute the arguments? You can't, not without rewriting history. Google's agenda is to control information on the Web, and access to that information. Their entire business model is based on that. You're completely wrong about what open standards are, and you're completely wrong about what WebM is in this context: WebM == Son of Flash.
And, your comments above regarding Apple and my "logic" are so completely ridiculous and completely at odds with reality that one wonders if you haven't lost your grip on it a bit.
Fair, they were condemned at least in France, payed and had to step back. Not sure if this warrants you the right to call it a "long history", specially because we are talking about patents and there's no single big tech company not being sued for a patent infringement or another.
Google lives by stealing information and selling it. Ask the newspapers what they think about Google news. And, what's this feature where they show a "preview" of a website if not IP theft, by a commercial entity, for profit. There's no fair use involved in any of this. That others feel they have to tolerate it or become invisible on the Web just indicates the degree to which Google is a problem, and emboldens them to break the law more and more often. In their opinion, "If Google doesn't, it can't be illegal." Where have we heard that sort of logic before?
Do you use Firefox on Mac? Did you remove the Quicktime 7.6.6 plugin?
I see where you're coming from
I usually run Safari and my alternate browser is Camino not Firefox. If the process of launching it causes Quicktime support to be added then so be it. I didn't consciously install any additional software.
FF has 22% and chrome has 12% of the browser market. Let's get our facts straight. That's no where near 50%.
Right. Depending on what stats you look at, FF, Chrome and Opera have between 35% and 50% of the market together. Let's be impartial and get the worst numbers for them. The worst statistic shows that they have 35% market share today. This will probably be a little more in 2012, when IE9 ships supporting H.264 in <video>.
Today, the only browsers that support H.264 in <video> tag natively are Safari (5% of the market) and Chrome (10%). No Firefox, no Opera, no IE6, no IE7, no IE8. In a few months, Safari will be alone, and, being pessimistic, WebM will be supported by 35% of the browsers. But this is pessimistically based on their worst numbers, and we know that IE has been losing market share in a consistent trend during the last years.
If Apple and Microsoft decide to not support a royalty-free codec as fallback in their browsers, like everybody else is doing, they will be basically defining that video on the web must be played using Flash.
If Apple and Microsoft decide to not support a royalty-free codec as fallback in their browsers, like everybody else is doing, they will be basically defining that video on the web must be played using Flash.
Nice attempt to confuse the issue, but Google is the company here pushing everyone to Flash.
Nice attempt to confuse the issue, but Google is the company here pushing everyone to Flash.
According to your logic... Mozilla and Opera too, no? Mozilla is the one with the biggest browser share, at least, and decided against H.264 long before Chrome.
Comments
Google has a long history of not respecting iP law
Really? You made me curious. Can you point a single case of Google being sued and condemned or settled a deal for infringing patents? Just one.
Big tech companies are sued for patent infringement all the time. For example, Google is being sued by Oracle right now, Apple is being sued by Nokia and Motorola right now, Microsoft had several famous cases, and the list goes on.
Now, let's be objective: which cases can you name of Google being convicted for "not respecting iP law" gave the right to call it "a long history"?
Royalty-free is a criterion for an open standard ...
Quite simply, you are 100% wrong about this. Restating it, yet again, won't make you any less wrong.
Really? You made me curious. Can you point a single case of Google being sued and condemned or settled a deal for infringing patents? Just one.
Big tech companies are sued for patent infringement all the time. For example, Google is being sued by Oracle right now, Apple is being sued by Nokia and Motorola right now, Microsoft had several famous cases, and the list goes on.
Now, let's be objective: which cases can you name of Google being convicted for "not respecting iP law" gave the right to call it "a long history"?
The Google Books Program, for one. Also, they will lose the Android case.
H.264 isn't open because it is not royalty-free. That was said already.
No, what H.264 is not is "free as in beer". It is entirely open, and you'e free to use it to your heart's content. It is also an Industry Standard controlled by a co-operative joint venture consisting of the vast majority of the industry. webM is a proprietary codec offering free as in beer access to the source code. It is not a standard - almost nobody uses it and it is still technically proprietary - and it's definitely not open, since instead of turning over control to a standards body (Heck, turning it over to W3C would go a long way to convincing me Google are not acting maliciously), Google are maintaining control themselves.
What you webM advocates seem to not understand is that by backing Google on this, you're not backing an Open Web. Your backing Google's attempt to control the web. This is coming from someone who has been unashamedly pro-Google (I happily use their services literally every day, and maintain their Search is the best by lightyears): Google is not your friend. They have their own interests, just like Apple and just like Microsoft. In fact, Google's are even more out of step with yours, you're not their customer. They give stuff like webM and Android away free to users and partners and earn their money from their customers, the advertisers.
Apple and Microsoft, at least, have to at least try and look out for the interests of their users.
Google don't own the Web and they certainly don't have any right to control video, an area where their expertise is limited to having acquired the (Admittedly) breakout video hosting Startup. It may be the biggest, but it's not the only and it's not unassailable.
Put it this way, if I was Google and so I was running YouTube, I'd be living in constant fear of Facebook too.
Bottom line, if Google's really looking out for the open web, then they should turn over control of webM to W3C, get it ratified as a standard, and indemnify users against patent lawsuits - and continue to support H.264 in Chrome. They already did the work, taking it out is anti-consumer. But like I said, Google doesn't care about consumers.
Open, closed, whatever. The whole discussion can be distilled to: "iPhone can't view webM content. Apple needs YouTube to remain in h.264."
Nothing else has a significant impact to the general public.
Most people will not be affected one way or the other unless iPhone can't view YouTube.
H.264, which is an open standard, no matter how many times you deny that it is, that promotes an open Web, and has been embraced by an open Web.
Sorry, H.264 can't be the standard video fpor the open web because it is not royalty free. That was said already. WebM can:
Free Software Foundation statement on WebM and VP8
WebM is nothing but a power play by Google to control the Web, and make it less open, less free, and more their private property.
Wow, this is a whole lot of nonsense. Let me point it again:
Free Software Foundation statement on WebM and VP8
H.264 is an open standard under the accepted definition of what an open standard is. The W3C patent policy doesn't change that and the fact that they have decided not to specify codecs makes it entirely irrelevant since there will be no standard codec.
Once again: What does the W3C Patent Policy say about standards that are not royalty-free? You yourself tried to lecture someone else about context. The context is the web!
It's entirely to the point. Google has shown that it is an outlaw company that does not respect intellectual property law. Therefore, they cannot be trusted when they say something doesn't violate that law: they claim nothing they do violates the law and they've misled the public on it in cases where they were clearly in violation of the law. Simply, they have no credibility left.
No, it's just more FUD. You are desperate.
W3C Widgets have no bearing on that issue, which you clearly either don't understand or wish to dance around by bringing in irrelevant side topics to confuse the issue.
W3C Widgets are relevant because your logic dictates that the situation there means that Apple hates open standards and always tries to block them.
No, what promotes an open web is to not allow companies like Microsoft (IE), Adobe (Flash) and Google (where to begin, but WebM in this instance) exercise control over the technology and data of the Web.
Ah, but you want the MPEG-LA to exercise control over technology and data on the web. Hypocrite, much?
H.264, which is an open standard, no matter how many times you deny that it is, that promotes an open Web, and has been embraced by an open Web.
Wrong. Read the W3C Patent Policy. Did you read it yet?
WebM is nothing but a power play by Google to control the Web, and make it less open, less free, and more their private property.
WebM is an open-source project, and Google has given it away for free.
Interestingly, sabotaging the open Web with WebM fits nicely into the strategy they revealed when they conspired with Verizon to sabotage net neutrality. Part of a pattern and entirely relevant to the discussion.
FUD, FUD, FUD. You are really desperate.
Really? You made me curious. Can you point a single case of Google being sued and condemned or settled a deal for infringing patents? Just one.
First, IP is a catch-all that combines trademarks, copyrights and patents. Narrowing your response to only cover patents doesn't change the fact that Google had to settle out and alter their behavior with books.
Also, take a look at the Overture lawsuit against Google, which was about patents covering web ads.
Quite simply, you are 100% wrong about this. Restating it, yet again, won't make you any less wrong.
You have failed to address the W3C Patent Policy. Until you do, you are just trolling.
Google making WebM available free, WITHOUT PATENT INDEMNIFICATION, should tell everyone all they need to know about WebM.
Havent though of it before, but you hit the nail for me here! I remember being threatened by a competing patented technology a few years ago. They went after all my customers. To relieve my customers of the threat I had to - in contract - indemnify them of any costs. And it went to court. We won. My customers were happy. My partner had to pay all costs for trials. Not the customers.
Google - if you are a good supplier of the platforms you develop, include indemnification in the licensing terms. It's kind of a no brainer. If you are sure their is none, then there's no threat.
Good! Thank's Realistic!
No, what H.264 is not is "free as in beer". It is entirely open, and you'e free to use it to your heart's content.
No, it is not entirely open. It is restricted by patents. It is patent-encumbered.
It is also an Industry Standard controlled by a co-operative joint venture consisting of the vast majority of the industry.
Irrelevant. Still not open.
webM is a proprietary codec offering free as in beer access to the source code.
Actually, WebM is not proprietary. It's an open-source project.
It is not a standard
Irrelevant. HTML5 is not a standard (yet) either.
almost nobody uses it
The same goes for HTML5. You are saying that people should give up on HTML5. Good one!
it's definitely not open, since instead of turning over control to a standards body (Heck, turning it over to W3C would go a long way to convincing me Google are not acting maliciously), Google are maintaining control themselves.
Actually, it's an open-source project, and Google gave out the rights of all patents for free, and irrevocably.
What you webM advocates seem to not understand is that by backing Google on this, you're not backing an Open Web. Your backing Google's attempt to control the web.
No, not at all. Just because you hate Google doesn't mean that everything they do is wrong.
This is coming from someone who has been unashamedly pro-Google (I happily use their services literally every day, and maintain their Search is the best by lightyears): Google is not your friend.
And now you are an Apple fanboy, and you fear competition from Google. A bit pathetic, really.
Apple and Microsoft, at least, have to at least try and look out for the interests of their users.
You are sinking deeper into insanity now...
Bottom line, if Google's really looking out for the open web, then they should turn over control of webM to W3C, get it ratified as a standard, and indemnify users against patent lawsuits - and continue to support H.264 in Chrome. They already did the work, taking it out is anti-consumer. But like I said, Google doesn't care about consumers.
You are talking pure and utter nonsense. WebM is run as an open-source project. Google has issued an irrevocable license. Even the MPEG-LA doesn't indemnify against patent lawsuits. H264 is a threat to the open web.
You are nothing but a hypocritical Apple fanboy spreading FUD.
Google - if you are a good supplier of the platforms you develop, include indemnification in the licensing terms. It's kind of a no brainer. If you are sure their is none, then there's no threat.
Like the MPEG-LA fails to indemnify its members?
And why would Google offer indemnity when WebM is a separate open-source project?
The Google Books Program, for one.
Fair, they were condemned at least in France, payed and had to step back. Not sure if this warrants you the right to call it a "long history", specially because we are talking about patents and there's no single big tech company not being sued for a patent infringement or another.
If we consider when Apple was first sued for patent infringement, the result will be that Apple has a much longer history of "IP infringement", just because it is older. Nonsense, right? I agree. Patent fights are common in the industry because big tech companies use them to exchange technology ("let me use it or I sue you") or defend themselves from other patent infringement accusations ("you don't sue me, I don't sue you"). Or for just trolling or generating FUD. Nasty terrain.
Also, they will lose the Android case.
Questionable, but totally irrelevant to the topic of open web.
Once again: What does the W3C Patent Policy say about standards that are not royalty-free? You yourself tried to lecture someone else about context. The context is the web!
No, it's just more FUD. You are desperate.
W3C Widgets are relevant because your logic dictates that the situation there means that Apple hates open standards and always tries to block them.
Ah, but you want the MPEG-LA to exercise control over technology and data on the web. Hypocrite, much?
Wrong. Read the W3C Patent Policy. Did you read it yet?
WebM is an open-source project, and Google has given it away for free.
FUD, FUD, FUD. You are really desperate.
Well, if it's FUD, FUD, FUD, and I'm "desperate" why don't you refute the arguments? You can't, not without rewriting history. Google's agenda is to control information on the Web, and access to that information. Their entire business model is based on that. You're completely wrong about what open standards are, and you're completely wrong about what WebM is in this context: WebM == Son of Flash.
And, your comments above regarding Apple and my "logic" are so completely ridiculous and completely at odds with reality that one wonders if you haven't lost your grip on it a bit.
Fair, they were condemned at least in France, payed and had to step back. Not sure if this warrants you the right to call it a "long history", specially because we are talking about patents and there's no single big tech company not being sued for a patent infringement or another.
Google lives by stealing information and selling it. Ask the newspapers what they think about Google news. And, what's this feature where they show a "preview" of a website if not IP theft, by a commercial entity, for profit. There's no fair use involved in any of this. That others feel they have to tolerate it or become invisible on the Web just indicates the degree to which Google is a problem, and emboldens them to break the law more and more often. In their opinion, "If Google doesn't, it can't be illegal." Where have we heard that sort of logic before?
Do you use Firefox on Mac? Did you remove the Quicktime 7.6.6 plugin?
I see where you're coming from
I usually run Safari and my alternate browser is Camino not Firefox. If the process of launching it causes Quicktime support to be added then so be it. I didn't consciously install any additional software.
FF has 22% and chrome has 12% of the browser market. Let's get our facts straight. That's no where near 50%.
Right. Depending on what stats you look at, FF, Chrome and Opera have between 35% and 50% of the market together. Let's be impartial and get the worst numbers for them. The worst statistic shows that they have 35% market share today. This will probably be a little more in 2012, when IE9 ships supporting H.264 in <video>.
Today, the only browsers that support H.264 in <video> tag natively are Safari (5% of the market) and Chrome (10%). No Firefox, no Opera, no IE6, no IE7, no IE8. In a few months, Safari will be alone, and, being pessimistic, WebM will be supported by 35% of the browsers. But this is pessimistically based on their worst numbers, and we know that IE has been losing market share in a consistent trend during the last years.
If Apple and Microsoft decide to not support a royalty-free codec as fallback in their browsers, like everybody else is doing, they will be basically defining that video on the web must be played using Flash.
* http://marketshare.hitslink.com/brow...e.aspx?qprid=1
If Apple and Microsoft decide to not support a royalty-free codec as fallback in their browsers, like everybody else is doing, they will be basically defining that video on the web must be played using Flash.
Nice attempt to confuse the issue, but Google is the company here pushing everyone to Flash.
That's because you don't understand what 'open' means in this context.
Yes, I do. We are talking about open web. H.264 can't be considered open in the context of open web because it is patent-encumbered.
This was said already, and this is why Firefox and others can't use it.
Nice attempt to confuse the issue, but Google is the company here pushing everyone to Flash.
According to your logic... Mozilla and Opera too, no? Mozilla is the one with the biggest browser share, at least, and decided against H.264 long before Chrome.