or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › MPEG LA starts digging patent pool under Google's WebM
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

MPEG LA starts digging patent pool under Google's WebM

post #1 of 175
Thread Starter 
Google's efforts to create a royalty-free video codec for the web are now being actively undermined by the MPEG Licensing Authority, which has announced plans to represent patent holders who claim infringement.

A report by Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents notes the MPEG LA has announced plans to put "Google's WebM video format VP8 under patent scrutiny."

The group, which represents a large number patent holders who have collectively pooled their intellectual property to develop interoperability standards for multimedia, has announced "a call for patents essential to the VP8 codec specification" as the first step in creating a patent pool to collect royalties from users of Google's WebM.

The MPEG LA announcement states that "any party that believes it has patents that are essential to the VP8 video codec specification is invited to submit them for a determination of their essentiality by MPEG LAs patent evaluators."

Essentially patented

Mueller wrote, "since I'm against software patents, I'd be happy to see a patent-free video codec put competitive pressure on dozens of major patent holders. But I make a clear distinction between what I'd like to see happen and what I consider realistic."

He explained that "MPEG LA's patent evaluators (legal and technical experts) will analyze all of the submitted patents to determine their 'essentiality.' In any standardization process, an 'essential' patent is understood to be required for an implementation of the standard in question, as opposed to patents that may be somewhat related to it but not absolutely necessary."

The MPEG LA says "at least one essential patent is necessary to participate in the process, and initial submissions should be made by March 18, 2011. Although only issued patents will be included in the license, in order to participate in the license development process, patent applications with claims that their owners believe are essential to the specification and likely to issue in a patent also may be submitted."

Clearly know what they're doing

Google has said it believes WebM is not "patent encumbered," but is not willing to indemnify its users if they are sued by other patent holders. Once the MPEG LA examines the patents of holders who believe their patents do indeed encumber Google's future plans for free distribution of WebM, all the patent holders involved will negotiate to set the terms for sharing the royalties that will be collected based on the relative value of each stakeholder's intellectual property.

The MPEG LA would then approach WebM users and ask for royalty payments, a move that would force Google, Mozilla and other users of WebM to fight each of the patent claims in court to seek to overturn each as invalid or to prove that there is no infringement. "Depending on the size and quality of the pool, that can be a formidable or practically insurmountable challenge," Mueller wrote.

"I want to be frank," Mueller concluded. "Despite my dislike for software patents, if I had to bet money, I would bet it on MPEG LA, not on Google. MPEG LA has a pretty strong track record in codec patent licensing. One may or may not like their business model, but they clearly know what they're doing. By contrast, Google's flagship open source project, Android, has turned out to be a patent suit magnet."

The industry in MPEG LA vs Google

Apple supports H.264 because it allows the company to deliver video products without facing patent uncertainties. The company is also a stakeholder in the MPEG LA patent pool for H.264, which VP8 and other codecs originally developed by On2 appear to be based on. However, Apple is known to be a minority player in the patent pool, having contributed elements that apparently involved relinquishing royalty demands, such as the MPEG4 container format based on the original QuickTime's container.

Even Microsoft, which has a large patent portfolio related to video technologies based on its work to develop Window Media and the VC-1 codec, has publicly stated that income from its share of H.264 licensing royalties is about half what it actually contributes back as a user of the technology.

Most commercial companies have no problem paying the licensing fees related to H.264, but the fees are more difficult for open source projects such as Mozilla, which would also prefer to use unrestricted open codecs compatible with its mission to provide free software.

Google, while facing no difficulty in paying for H.264 licensing, would similarly prefer to be able to distribute its free software, including Chrome OS, without having to pay for the use of commercial codecs. Google also pays for the use of H.264 on YouTube.

Last month, Google attempted to push adoption of WebM by announcing that it would disable support for H.264 in its Chrome browser, a move that suggested the firm may also turn off support for H.264 on YouTube at some point, which would render the site inaccessible from Apple's iOS devices and most other mobile products.

We're hoping things will just work out

In a statement published by The Register, a Google spokesperson wrote that "the vast majority of the industry supports free and open development, and were in the process of forming a broad coalition of hardware and software companies who commit to not assert any IP claims against WebM. We are firmly committed to the project and establishing an open codec for HTML5 video.

The site noted that Google's WebM license "says that if you use the technology, you can't make patent claims against it," but patent holders who believe that WebM incorporates their technology are unlikely to either use WebM or be swayed by the commitments of other companies who chose not to assert their patents against it.

Google has similarly shrugged off claims that its free Android operating system may be infringing the patents and other intellectual property of Oracle, following its development as a Java-like platform. Google resolved its largest patent infringement case, involving Yahoo and its acquired Overture subsidiary, by simply granting its competitor a large amount of stock.

Other companies in the industry are more wary of patent issues, the foremost being Apple, which is said to be the world's most frequently sued company on earth in the realm of patent suits.
post #2 of 175
And so it begins.

Which of us is the fisherman and which the trout?

Reply

Which of us is the fisherman and which the trout?

Reply
post #3 of 175
As much as it would have been an instinctive move Nokia was smart not to have anything to do with Google. Symbian and Google was the burning platform and Microsoft was the icy sea. Nokia jumped into the sea.
post #4 of 175
Google is more and more becoming such a fraud.
post #5 of 175
One funny angle of all of this is that Google is a American company infringing on patents from and destroying other american companies. That seems defendable, while when Chinese companies does the same, they should rotten in hell.

The participants in these discussion sometimes are just too funny to watch while they try to figure out how to deal with this. Patents or not? Should inventors earn money? Should creative people have the right to be rich? Or should the lazy ones just be able to steal and use for free?

I just can't wait too see how this goes down. The odds are not on Googles side I think. IF it were, I think America should think again. At least twice.
post #6 of 175
When MPEG-LA decides they want to increase revenues in a few years by increasing fees for H.264, I'm sure you'll see them begin suing all sorts of people.

The organization is basically designed to aggressively sue anyone who comes close to infringing their "intellectual property". Humorous that anyone remotely coming close to accusing Apple of intellectual property theft gets eviscerated as just being a greedy lawyer, but when the same happens to Google, everyone sides with the lawyers and patent trolls.

I bet if Terry Jones declared international "cancel your gmail account day", he would be given a job as a writer on AI...
post #7 of 175
This quote jumps out at you:

Quote:
"I want to be frank," Mueller concluded. "Despite my dislike for software patents, if I had to bet money, I would bet it on MPEG LA, not on Google. MPEG LA has a pretty strong track record in codec patent licensing. One may or may not like their business model, but they clearly know what they're doing. By contrast, Google's flagship open source project, Android, has turned out to be a patent suit magnet."
post #8 of 175
case in point of how there should be no such thing as software patents. They do nothing but stifle innovation and destroy competition.
post #9 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by bullhead View Post

case in point of how there should be no such thing as software patents. They do nothing but stifle innovation and destroy competition.

What planet are you from? If software patents were not allowed why would anyone spend time and money developing software if anyone could then just basically copy, steal and call it their own? If a company or person can't make a profit writing software then obviously they won't even bother to try.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply
post #10 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Realistic View Post

What planet are you from? If software patents were not allowed why would anyone spend time and money developing software if anyone could then just basically copy, steal and call it their own? If a company or person can't make a profit writing software then obviously they won't even bother to try.

Andriod is such a open OS . If, software patent is wrong then every other patent including pharmaceuticals etc.., Google should make an andriod pill also.
post #11 of 175
Google has been ridiculously irresponsible with this whole WebM thing, such a cynical move. It's clear the decision had nothing to do with 'openness' but instead an effort to undermine Apple, by undermining the H.264 standard and trying to torpedo its chances of becoming ubiquitous, and in the process making the lives of consumers more difficult.

These days, most of Google's decisions seem made to harm Apple, more than to make a good product or help the industry and consumers.
post #12 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

Google has been ridiculously irresponsible with this whole WebM thing, such a cynical move. It's clear the decision had nothing to do with 'openness' but instead an effort to undermine Apple, by undermining the H.264 standard and trying to torpedo its chances of becoming ubiquitous, and in the process making the lives of consumers more difficult.

These days, most of Google's decisions seem made to harm Apple, more than to make a good product or help the industry and consumers.

It's time Apple brings the war to google own land where it's only their blood.

Googles strengths are search, maps & video and using andriod to deliver the Ads into the hands.

First they need to take out the maps, coupled with a device which is cheap enough to hook people into apple subsystem. Then they push a Google competitor like Facebook against it like a video service or such. And this will be the killer make iAds such that it is without a cut to developer and make it available to all platforms. This will opposite to google which made the platform free and ads paid, make the platform paid & ads free.
post #13 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Realistic View Post

What planet are you from? If software patents were not allowed why would anyone spend time and money developing software if anyone could then just basically copy, steal and call it their own? If a company or person can't make a profit writing software then obviously they won't even bother to try.

I know this is well beyond the comprehension of the drones on this board, but imagine if mathematic formulas were patentable. We would still be living in caves. Ever hear of trademarks and copyrights? And not everyones motive are based purely on greed.

educate yourself before you speak. I know that is asking a lot in the age of Faux News.

http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/07/why...tware-patents/
http://www.jerf.org/writings/communi...ics/node6.html
post #14 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by bullhead View Post

I know this is well beyond the comprehension of the drones on this board, but imagine if mathematic formulas were patentable. We would still be living in caves. Ever hear of trademarks and copyrights? And not everyones motive are based purely on greed.

educate yourself before you speak. I know that is asking a lot in the age of Faux News.

http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/07/why...tware-patents/
http://www.jerf.org/writings/communi...ics/node6.html

Imagine if Google accused Bing of copying their search results derived using mathematical formulae known as algorithms...

...oh, hang on they did, then whined about it all over the Internet.

Bunch of hypocrites, Google want to run roughshod over everyone else's IP, taking and adapting whatever they want but the first sign of it happening to them and they chuck a tantrum.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #15 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Imagine if Google accused Bing of copying their search results using mathematical formulae known as algorithms...

...oh, hang on they did, then whined about it all over the Internet.

Bunch of hypocrites, they want to run roughshod over everyone else's IP, taking and adapting whatever they want but the first sign of it happening to them and they chuck a tantrum.

do you have some specifics on the patents vp8 is using? You are saying they are
Quote:
...taking and adapting..

. Or are you talking out of your back side?
post #16 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by bullhead View Post

do you have some specifics on the patents vp8 is using? You are saying they are . Or are you talking out of your back side?

I'll leave that to Oracle (Java), the world's writers (Google scanning books project), people with unprotected wifi (streetview privacy invasion) and of course MPEG-LA (among others) to sort out, seeing as I am no more than a "drone"

Meanwhile in light of your comments regarding mathematical formulae, you want to justify why Google should protect their search algorithms, you know seeing as how they are so "open" and all.

Drones = bees = attracted to honeycomb.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #17 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

In a statement published by The Register, a Google spokesperson wrote that "the vast majority of the industry supports free and open development,

Google is full of it.

Open Source software makes up only a tiny fraction of the software in use out there. Windows? Mac OS X? Microsoft Office? Photoshop? Any of the 10,000 games in use? Quickbooks? And so on, ad nauseum.

Open Source software is a very minor component of the software industry.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #18 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by bullhead View Post

case in point of how there should be no such thing as software patents. They do nothing but stifle innovation and destroy competition.

Why would there be any innovation if the results were not able to be protected from the likes of Google and Microsoft who would simply reverse engineer everything and steal them. Heck even with patents Microsoft reverse engineered Mac OS and Quicktime for their own use. Both cases proved in court btw before anyone argues ... and settled between Apple and MS thanks to patents.

Patent trolls and the East Texas courts give patents a bad name but we should not lose sight of the legitimate rights of inventors to protect their IP.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #19 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by bullhead View Post

case in point of how there should be no such thing as software patents. They do nothing but stifle innovation and destroy competition.

You're deluded. These software patents interact with the hardware.
post #20 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by bullhead View Post

I know this is well beyond the comprehension of the drones on this board, but imagine if mathematic formulas were patentable. We would still be living in caves. Ever hear of trademarks and copyrights? And not everyones motive are based purely on greed.

educate yourself before you speak. I know that is asking a lot in the age of Faux News.

http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/07/why...tware-patents/
http://www.jerf.org/writings/communi...ics/node6.html

Implementations of Theoretical and Applied Mathematics goes back to Archimedes to build apparatuses to wage War.

They gave their civilization a lead on other warring nations.

Implementations today bring the world technological advancement with it's applications to the macro and micro worlds. The incentive nature of a unique implementation is the spark that drives competition.

When the entire Globe is ready to become Star Trek then yes, Patents will become irrelevant.
post #21 of 175
The problem is in practice this argument doesn't bear fruition. Look at the fashion industry, where the Supreme Court strangely enough said the creative endeavors of fashion designers aren't protected by intellectual property laws. Yet, it is a multi-billion dollar industry with new players emerging all the time. Very competitive.

The reality is software is protected by both copyright, which protection lasts over a hundred years, and patent law, where patents last 14 years. I don't have as much problem with patents as copyright, but both kill innovation because large companies spend millions of dollars patenting ideas they don't plan to put into effect. Small guys do this as well. The big companies often do it to kill competition. They don't want any new ideas interfering with their business model, and they want a large patent library to defend against patent lawsuits in the form of a countersuit. The little guy does it so that when a big company comes up with the same idea, the little guy can sue and try to get a pay out. All this stifles innovations.

As far as MPEG LA is concerned, I don't see it worst then any other patenting body.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Realistic View Post

What planet are you from? If software patents were not allowed why would anyone spend time and money developing software if anyone could then just basically copy, steal and call it their own? If a company or person can't make a profit writing software then obviously they won't even bother to try.
post #22 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Imagine if Google accused Bing of copying their search results derived using mathematical formulae known as algorithms...

...oh, hang on they did, then whined about it all over the Internet. ...

And what a bunch of bullshit from Google that turned out to be. They basically figured out how to feed fake click data into Bing, then used that to make bogus search results show up. The whole thing is so pathetic and stupid that I wouldn't be surprised if some Google engineers were spending their "free time" engaged in industrial sabotage research and then someone realized that it was going to blow in Google's face so they invented this, "Bing is copying our search results!" thing to cover the whole thing up.

But, yeah, pretty ironic whining coming from a company that runs on violating the IP of others.
post #23 of 175
This is the part of poker match where you show your cards.
post #24 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Realistic View Post

What planet are you from? If software patents were not allowed why would anyone spend time and money developing software if anyone could then just basically copy, steal and call it their own? If a company or person can't make a profit writing software then obviously they won't even bother to try.

The real one, where through the 80's and 90's there were no software patents and there were huge advances in computer technology. Now companies big and small are getting into more and more trouble with patents most (but not all) are dubious at best. The lawyers are getting rich.
post #25 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by bullhead View Post

case in point of how there should be no such thing as software patents. They do nothing but stifle innovation and destroy competition.

In your dream world we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The technologies to communicate would not have been invented due to lack of incentive to do so.
I am an inventor, and I know just how damn hard it is create that which has never been created before. And it's so easy to copy, and so deplorable too. Hard work deserves protection and reward.
post #26 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

When MPEG-LA decides they want to increase revenues in a few years by increasing fees for H.264, I'm sure you'll see them begin suing all sorts of people.

The organization is basically designed to aggressively sue anyone who comes close to infringing their "intellectual property". Humorous that anyone remotely coming close to accusing Apple of intellectual property theft gets eviscerated as just being a greedy lawyer, but when the same happens to Google, everyone sides with the lawyers and patent trolls.

I bet if Terry Jones declared international "cancel your gmail account day", he would be given a job as a writer on AI...

You wonder why people on these boards would have a different attitude between claims against Google and claims against Apple? Because they are usually qualitatively different in nature. Sure, there will be some people that come out and accuse Apple of this or that, but Apple definitely works hard, develops most of its own technologies and can show a long and consistent process of development over the years. It has a track record of a pretty good work ethic.

Take one of the recent suits: Apple gets sued, a long with a bunch of others, for the way music is listed hierarchically in it's music library in iTunes. But everyone believes this is a junk patent because it is simply logical and self-evident that anyone would organise a song by Artist, Album and song name. What else can you do?

In contrast, the technological way that the iPod scrolls the list seamlessly and effortlessly according to the swipe applied with your finger and showing inertia that slows it down like a physical thing... That is completely Apple's own doing and rightly should be defended against copiers.

Apple can usually show that it came up with many things over the years and implemented things from scratch in it's own way. Google on the other hand, as you can see in this piece, just disrespects IP as a philosophy. They expect to do what they like and get away with it. If they want to incorporate portions of Sun's IP improperly, then they will just go ahead and do it. They are on record as having a whole philosophy of disrespect. They seem to think, that just because they are distributing something for "nothing", that they have a right to use whatever they need for nothing.

In fact, Google are profiting from the users' eyeballs and private data; which rubs a against their "do no evil" mantra. This definitely contributes to the differing attitudes about patent claims against these two companies. So, please don't act like Apple supporters don't have a clue and hypocritically support their favourite company no matter what. There are obvious subtleties at play here, the claims and suits are different (and where the claims against both companies are the same, their respective culpability differs); not to mention the philosophies and characteristics displayed by the leadership differ at each company.
post #27 of 175
Abandon the concept of property rights and you are literally a communist.

Absurd as it seems Google's entire business model is built on the basis of giving away that which belongs to others.
post #28 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeltsBear View Post

The real one, where through the 80's and 90's there were no software patents and there were huge advances in computer technology. Now companies big and small are getting into more and more trouble with patents most (but not all) are dubious at best. The lawyers are getting rich.

Oh yeah, the 80's and 90's, where an MS could flatten Netscape and anything else in it's path, in order to leave us with a crap browser for ten years, which some computer users still use. If MS had its way, you wouldn't be worried about MPEG LA, because we would all be using Windows media and making non-standards compliant, proprietary websites using inferior MS technology and its own perversion of java.

Seems like we are rolling right back around to the same thing, if Google continues unchecked. Some progress, eh? No, let's not let the device makers and software publishers worry about paying a pool of patent holders for some of the great and innovative tech they deliver to us as users, and which is being actively improved upon all the time (real advances, made economically viable and open because they are made in collaboration with others); no, let's get into bed with one company that has evident big brother aspirations but a poor record of completing projects and implementing the advances you speak of in any practical way... (this applies almost equally to Adobe, Google and MS : companies that do not promote real open standards no matter how much they protest their openness).
post #29 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by bullhead View Post

I know this is well beyond the comprehension of the drones on this board, but imagine if mathematic formulas were patentable. We would still be living in caves. Ever hear of trademarks and copyrights? And not everyones motive are based purely on greed.

educate yourself before you speak. I know that is asking a lot in the age of Faux News.

http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/07/why...tware-patents/
http://www.jerf.org/writings/communi...ics/node6.html

How about you educate yourself on BING!
post #30 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabbelen View Post

Oh yeah, the 80's and 90's, where an MS could flatten Netscape and anything else in it's path, in order to leave us with a crap browser for ten years, which some computer users still use. If MS had its way, you wouldn't be worried about MPEG LA, because we would all be using Windows media and making non-standards compliant, proprietary websites using inferior MS technology and its own perversion of java.

Seems like we are rolling right back around to the same thing, if Google continues unchecked. Some progress, eh? No, let's not let the device makers and software publishers worry about paying a pool of patent holders for some of the great and innovative tech they deliver to us as users, and which is being actively improved upon all the time (real advances, made economically viable and open because they are made in collaboration with others); no, let's get into bed with one company that has evident big brother aspirations but a poor record of completing projects and implementing the advances you speak of in any practical way... (this applies almost equally to Adobe, Google and MS : companies that do not promote real open standards no matter how much they protest their openness).

Well said!
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #31 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

This quote jumps out at you:

...that's because Mueller is a bit of a troll/shill himself. Take a peek at his postings on Slashdot sometime... he's all about instantly giving up and siding with Microsoft, et al.
post #32 of 175
I was waiting for this for a while. We'll see how it plays out but I hope MPEG wins. Dropping h.264 from Chrome to focus on WebM, which is crappier and generally not hardware accelerated was a bad turn. Hopefully this makes google realize that.
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #33 of 175
Google believes the world needs another video codec *cough* standard *cough*. Wasn't this problem already solved by H.264?

Their reasons are because they think a codec should be patent-free? Patents are a fact of life in the tech business, you'd think Google would have figured that out by now. Is it pride, hubris, or just some FOSS idealism? If they supported H.264 next to WebM, WebM would never see adoption. They have to throw their weight and influence to make WebM work. If they win, it's a sign that Google has too much power. Not even Microsoft could push their proprietary VC1 to defeat H.264: they too had to support H.264.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #34 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Imagine if Google accused Bing of copying their search results derived using mathematical formulae known as algorithms...

...oh, hang on they did, then whined about it all over the Internet.

Bunch of hypocrites, Google want to run roughshod over everyone else's IP, taking and adapting whatever they want but the first sign of it happening to them and they chuck a tantrum.

They didn't copy the algorithm, just the results. And their algorithms are not covered by patents but by simply being secret. Nothing can stop Microsoft from trying to engineer their own algorithm to compete with Google.

OTOH, copying their search results wholesale is more akin to stealing source code, which appears that Google may have done with android.
post #35 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

And what a bunch of bullshit from Google that turned out to be. They basically figured out how to feed fake click data into Bing, then used that to make bogus search results show up. The whole thing is so pathetic and stupid that I wouldn't be surprised if some Google engineers were spending their "free time" engaged in industrial sabotage research and then someone realized that it was going to blow in Google's face so they invented this, "Bing is copying our search results!" thing to cover the whole thing up.

But, yeah, pretty ironic whining coming from a company that runs on violating the IP of others.

Where did you read that at? Seems like a bunch of bs yourself.
post #36 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Google believes the world needs another video codec *cough* standard *cough*. Wasn't this problem already solved by H.264?

Their reasons are because they think a codec should be patent-free? Patents are a fact of life in the tech business, you'd think Google would have figured that out by now. Is it pride, hubris, or just some FOSS idealism? If they supported H.264 next to WebM, WebM would never see adoption. They have to throw their weight and influence to make WebM work. If they win, it's a sign that Google has too much power. Not even Microsoft could push their proprietary VC1 to defeat H.264: they too had to support H.264.

VP8 aka WebM is NOT patent free; it's patented like anything else and those patents were purchased by Google and they licensed it into the open.

Sorry, but this is just more BS from MPEG-LA. They are nothing but a patent troll organization. They didn't care about VP6 when it was used all over the web, nor would they ever work with Ziph to make sure VP3 wasn't patent encumbered, and now only care about VP8 now that Google made it into the open domain.

You want MPEG-LA to win? This same organization is suing for royalties from apple and others over BS patents regarding phones they got. Sorry, the MPEG part of the name used to mean something, now all they do is make "patent pools" for anything they come across.

Quote:
"At MPEG-LA, we've always gone after anybody in need of a license, to offer them one," Horn adds. "You get no favoritism just because you happen to be a licensor in one program. If somebody gives us the right to license their IP in one context, they have to expect we're going to license someone else's IP in another context. Our credibility is based on that."
post #37 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

Where did you read that at? Seems like a bunch of bs yourself.

Why don't you go Google (wish there was a markup for irony) it, it's all over the web and twitter.
post #38 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Imagine if Google accused Bing of copying their search results derived using mathematical formulae known as algorithms...

...oh, hang on they did, then whined about it all over the Internet.

Actually, Bing was wasn't using google algorithms, they were actually copying Google results - Google planted random words and links into the search engine which had nothing to do with the algorithm, and caught Bing basically using Google to create search results. Big difference.
post #39 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

When MPEG-LA decides they want to increase revenues in a few years by increasing fees for H.264, I'm sure you'll see them begin suing all sorts of people.

MPEGLA may never charge anyone but the largest of groups any fees, just as it is today. But they will still defend the patents because it means giving credit to the folks that really did the original work. And that alone can be valuable. If you were trying to get a job based on your work wouldn't you want to be acknowledged as the guy who thought of X first, especially X was a key factor in the decision. Or would you be happy with me claiming I thought of it first.

As for those saying we don't need another codec, actually we do. Trouble with Google's move is that they are trying to match the status quo and THAT is not what we need. We need a codec that would allow for blu-ray quality video without huge file size overheard. A digital BR that was 3-4 GB might be tolerable but right now it would be more like 30 gb and few to no one has the bandwidth etc for that. If Google could make that codec happen they would cream everyone in a heartbeat.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #40 of 175
why would mpeg la need to put out a call for patent holders? i thought they had already indicated that webm infringed?
'hey anyone out there want to sue google? we could use your support cuz we don't really have a case on our own and the FUD ain't working as well as we thought it would'

hopefully google will pull a Henry Ford and not pay a dime and take it to court as long as it takes...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › MPEG LA starts digging patent pool under Google's WebM