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 - Page 2

post #41 of 175
Poor Firefox.

The Mozilla Foundation is the only company that has a product that ships in the millions and that doesn't licence h.264 and yet use WebM. I have the feeling most of those patent lawsuits will hit them. Other companies allready have licenced most of those WebM decoding patents for the use in their h.264 decoder so they might be just fine.
post #42 of 175
How they can boast about it being an open standard when they refuse to include Safari and IE in their releases. Am I missing a download page?
post #43 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.

Bunch of hypocrites? Last time I looked google did not threaten a law suit, they merely said they were displeased. In fact I can't remember the last time google sued anyone. They don't believe in software patents either.

Software patents kill innovation. Patenting your software is lazy. It means you no longer have to innovate, you just sue everyone else that does try and innovate in the same space.
post #44 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

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.

Google's search algorithms are secret to protect innovation. They are not patented.

Imagine the apple search business mode:

Build kick ass algorithms

Patent

Sue anyone else that ever creates a search engine for infringement and lay back on innovation.
post #45 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Why don't you go Google (wish there was a markup for irony) it, it's all over the web and twitter.

Yeah, what happened is they found signs of bing copying their search results then did an experiment.

Heck, even Microsoft didn't deny it and said the results were open to them to copy, when in reality Google's TOS say otherwise.

You think Yahoo let Microsoft use their search engine for free back in the day?
post #46 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.

That's disinformation. What they complained of is Bing basically copying Google's results through IE8 and Windows features... Very different from emulating an algorithm, much more akin to cloning a Mac. But we're really comparing Apples and Carrots here :/

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

Reply
post #47 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

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.

Are you really that ill informed? You have just picked the biggest commercial software and stated therefore open source is a tiny fraction.

Are you so stupid not to know that the majority of software that websites run on is open source. Apache dwarf MS in this space. Even the Mac OSX kernel is based an a fork of freeBSD, an open source *UNIX* system.

Apple's webkit browser engine is open source for god sake. I bet you use more open source software every day than you do commercial shit.
post #48 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.

So all the computer innovation from the 40's through 1996 did not happen? The internet was not invented? Wow, i have heard of revisionist history before, but nothing quite like this.
post #49 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

Yeah, what happened is they found signs of bing copying their search results then did an experiment.

Heck, even Microsoft didn't deny it and said the results were open to them to copy, when in reality Google's TOS say otherwise.

You think Yahoo let Microsoft use their search engine for free back in the day?

Anyway, the turh of the matter is, patents may be protecting innovation or harming it depending on the case. Thats why there are lawyers and judges. However, currently, the pace of innovation in software (and computers, imho) is much higher than it ever was in any other domain. Hence, the patent 's length is actually too long. Make the patents' life shorter and you already solve a good part of those issues.

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

Reply
post #50 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post

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.

really? And what medium are we communicating through right now?


Quote:
Hard work deserves protection and reward.

Who says it does not? Copyrights and trademarks do that already as they have for centuries. Software Patents have done nothing but stifle innovation and cripple small companies. The MPEG cartel is a prime example...patent pooling to kill any competing formats.
post #51 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by samban View Post

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 make the platform free and ads paid, made the platform paid & ads free.

I understand were your coming from but your last suggestion would alienate developers and junk up the software. It would be nice to see Apple go after Google in a direct and meaningful way.
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
Reply
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
Reply
post #52 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

Anyway, the turh of the matter is, patents may be protecting innovation or harming it depending on the case. Thats why there are lawyers and judges. However, currently, the pace of innovation in software (and computers, imho) is much higher than it ever was in any other domain. Hence, the patent 's length is actually too long. Make the patents' life shorter and you already solve a good part of those issues.

Just remove them altogether. There is no such thing as software patents outside the US anyway. They may not be slowing innovation now but lets look at this in a couple of years.

Just think, if apple won all their lawsuits and ended up the sole supplier of smart phones. They would have no motivation to improve that god awful notification system. There would never be proper multi tasking, the processor would never improve at the same rate. The only that win are the apple senior management and us consumers get screwed.
post #53 of 175
MPEG LA is being Evil.

Thus: Don't Be Evil.
post #54 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

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.

Funny thing is that when you're talking about VP8, that's exactly what On2 did to create the standards: they literally took the H264 specifications and tried to rip out everything they thought was covered by patents.

Quote:
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.

No they didn't, they licensed use of the codec, but not the patents themselves. There are still clauses in the licensing term that will allow Google to pull any right you have using it if you don't play by their rules (e.g: sign a cross-licensing deal with MPEG-LA if it turns out VP8 still infringes on H264 patents and you want to keep selling your VP8 based products). In that regard, WebM is much worse than H264, since while you have to pay a (very reasonable) fee for using it, at the very least you can be 100% sure you are not stepping into a legal minefield because there is only one company holding VP8 patents, and that company explicitly waives any responsibility if *you* get into problems using *their* standard for no good reason besides saving a few pennies. The market confirms that almost no-one actually cares about Googles crappy format or the supposedly evil MPEG-LA royalties anyway, just look around you to find out that nowadays even a $20 knock-off Chinese PMP implements H264 and will have paid the royalties.

Quote:
Sorry, but this is just more BS from MPEG-LA. They are nothing but a patent troll organization.

You can only say something like that if you really have no idea what you're talking about and how much expertise and investments are involved creating an advanced codec like H264. I happen to know quite a lot about video codecs having implemented some myself, and you really are oblivious.

What the MPEG-LA does is nothing more than providing a legal safeguard for companies to invest money in the creation of open video standards that are too advanced for any of them to develop themselves. It took MPEG folks (experts from all kinds of fields and companies) that invented the standard about 25 years of work to get to the point where we are now, which is H264. That takes millions if not billions of dollars of investment from commercial parties that benefit from such a standard. Every party involved also benefits if the specification can be open, ie: every aspect of the specification can be published for anyone to see, to allow other companies to implement it properly and base products off of them. It's called standardization.

Now maybe if you use your brain for more than just a few seconds and don't try to view the world as if it were black vs white, good vs evil, patent trolls vs saints, you can see where this is going:

Large investments + new technology + high level of domain-specific expertise + years of development + publicly available specifications + no legal protection = no way of ever recuperating the investment in creating something like an advanced video codec.

Everybody would just take the specifications, implement them, make money off of them, and keep all the profits to themselves as if they did all the hard work.

The funny thing is that people like yourself who think MPEG-LA are 'patent trolls' don't seem to understand what the only alternative is. The alternative would be that every company would develop everything themselves, keep it closed-down, publish no specifications, and sue everyone who reverse-engineered it. We've been there already, when half of the internet and video was only useful on Microsoft-based platforms, video standards were utter crap and nothing properly interoperated with other OS's. Back then you couldn't even view *any* video on Linux based systems because everything used licensed technology like WMV or Indeo video. THAT was stifling innovation, not the fact that commercial entities have to pay a few pennies for using H264.

Quote:
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.

Just quoted this last bit to show again how your frame of reference is simply too small to be talking about this topic. I'm not a big proponent of software patents themselves, especially not the trivial ones, but that's a completely different discussion. If you think the patent system is rotten (it is) go complain to the US patent office. The fact that there are so many patent trolls around and so many trivial patents, doesn't mean no patentable technology (even if it is software) exists at all. If there's only *one* example where software patents make sense it would be video encoding technology, which is served by open standards but requires high investments and expertise to develop.

The fact that Google decided to try to push a ripped-off H264 codec that desperately tries to sidestep all of the patents held by MPEG-LA confirms why stuff like this has to be patentable. You are accusing MPEG-LA of being patent trolls, but Google nicely shows you why MPEG-LA needs to have 1000s of patents on H264 in the first place.

You saying 'MPEG' in 'MPEG-LA' used to mean something again shows you are making statements about things you simply don't understand. MPEG-LA and MPEG are completely unrelated. MPEG (motion picture experts group) is just a collective that develops and designs all the cool technology you are benefiting from every day. MPEG-LA is the club of companies that paid for that work, invested their money so the MPEG folks could do their work, commissioning them to make better video codecs, ie: funding them, in exactly the same way there are private companies investing money in cancer research and new pharmaceuticals.
post #55 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.

...

This post seems like a gross exaggeration of the real situation and chock-a-block full of paranoia as well.

People should remember that the folks who own the patents in MPEG LA are actually the people that invented the codecs in the first place. It's not the same thing as Google copying iOS.

This isn't like the average IP property fight where the company that owns the IP is itself a devious, immoral entity that merely purchased the IP instead of creating it themselves. It also isn't anything like most patent fights where someone is trolling with an overly broad or only tangentially related patent. As the article mentions (quite clearly), the infringing content if discovered, would have to be crucial to WebM, not just "kind of the same."

As far as I've been able to ascertain, the patent owners here are the very people that thought this stuff up, so why would they not deserve to get paid?

Lots of people dispute whether software patents should exist at all, but assuming they do, this kind of thing is the very thing that *should* be patented, and that very thing that people *should* be remunerated for.
post #56 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post

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.

Yup. I love how so many who have never created anything are so quick to dismiss those who wish to be rewarded for their invention. Sure, software patents aren't perfect, but that doesn't mean the concept is wholly without value.
post #57 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

hmmm, 'bullhead' very appropriate.

Why should I imagine mathematic formulas as patentable when they are not? Imagine mother's milk as being poison and that most of us would be dead and not living in your caves. Is either imagined scenario relevant to the the topic? I think not.

Of course I have heard about trademarks and copyrights. I am not an expert on either one and I don't profess to be but I do know that they are not the same as a patent. Our patent rules may be too general in many ways but need revision not abolition. Software patent protection is necessary.

I also disagree with you on greed because I believe that almost everyone (if not all people's) motive is greed based with the only difference being each individual's level of greed. You may call it whatever you want, to make it more palatable, but when all is said and done all it turns out to be is just a different level of greed.
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
Reply
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
Reply
post #58 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjw View Post

Patenting your software is lazy. It means you no longer have to innovate, you just sue everyone else that does try and innovate in the same space.

Sweeping generalizations are lazy. Software patents are a flawed yet necessary evil.
post #59 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-range View Post

No they didn't, they licensed use of the codec, but not the patents themselves. There are still clauses in the licensing term that will allow Google to pull any right you have using it if you don't play by their rules (e.g: sign a cross-licensing deal with MPEG-LA if it turns out VP8 still infringes on H264 patents and you want to keep selling your VP8 based products). In that regard, WebM is much worse than H264, since while you have to pay a (very reasonable) fee for using it, at the very least you can be 100% sure you are not stepping into a legal minefield because there is only one company holding VP8 patents, and that company explicitly waives any responsibility if *you* get into problems using *their* standard for no good reason besides saving a few pennies. The market confirms that almost no-one actually cares about Googles crappy format or the supposedly evil MPEG-LA royalties anyway, just look around you to find out that nowadays even a $20 knock-off Chinese PMP implements H264 and will have paid the royalties.

The only clause for losing the rights to a license over webm is if you sue the webm organization. That's to use it as a bargaining chip if MPEG-LA holders decide to sue.

Nowhere does MPEG-LA grant any indemification either if another patent holder sues over h.264. While the situation appears better it took over a decade for all the patent lawsuits to be cleared up over the ancient MPEG1-Layer III audio codec.

Quote:
You can only say something like that if you really have no idea what you're talking about and how much expertise and investments are involved creating an advanced codec like H264. I happen to know quite a lot about video codecs having implemented some myself, and you really are oblivious.

What the MPEG-LA does is nothing more than providing a legal safeguard for companies to invest money in the creation of open video standards that are too advanced for any of them to develop themselves. It took MPEG folks (experts from all kinds of fields and companies) that invented the standard about 25 years of work to get to the point where we are now, which is H264. That takes millions if not billions of dollars of investment from commercial parties that benefit from such a standard. Every party involved also benefits if the specification can be open, ie: every aspect of the specification can be published for anyone to see, to allow other companies to implement it properly and base products off of them. It's called standardization.

Nowhere did I deny this point; Mr. Horn aka CEO of MPEG-LA is himself going after others as a non practicing entity of MobileMedia over phone patents.


Quote:
Now maybe if you use your brain for more than just a few seconds and don't try to view the world as if it were black vs white, good vs evil, patent trolls vs saints, you can see where this is going:

Large investments + new technology + high level of domain-specific expertise + years of development + publicly available specifications + no legal protection = no way of ever recuperating the investment in creating something like an advanced video codec.

Everybody would just take the specifications, implement them, make money off of them, and keep all the profits to themselves as if they did all the hard work.

...

The fact that Google decided to try to push a ripped-off H264 codec that desperately tries to sidestep all of the patents held by MPEG-LA confirms why stuff like this has to be patentable. You are accusing MPEG-LA of being patent trolls, but Google nicely shows you why MPEG-LA needs to have 1000s of patents on H264 in the first place.

Except for the fact that On2's work predates H.264 and there is a chance that MPEG are liable for infringement. VP8/webm is inferior as a codec, but that is partly because they didn't implement the one main feature that could make it better, b-frames, because they didn't want to step on MPEG's patents.

There are probably many aspects of H.264 that are not software based, but this whole argument that patents are necessary to protect work is a bit ridiculous; copyright grants the necessary protection needed for software. Patents were never meant to protect ideas, nor math or software, yet the stupid patent office grants them day in and day out. While people argue that software patents are necessary to protect innovation, they forget that the reason why they were excluded in the first place is not because they didn't want to grant that protection, it is because it brings up weird issues. For example, someone can come up with a equation to figure out a desired result, but if I can run that equation right in my head, am I infringing?

Apple's multi touch patents are a good example of this. They didn't invent a multi-touch screen, just a gesture and the whole scrolling routine. The problem with this is the idea is implemented 100% in software, and typically in software you can accomplish tasks only one way. What if I find a different way to implement that idea/feature in software? Am I still infringing?

Apple patenting a sliding switch on a screen is just a software implementation of a hardware switch. Nothing new, nothing novel about it; just a software routine made to work as a switch on software. Yet it was granted a patent. Now those who use android are liable because it uses a connecting dot system to unlock the phone, which is more novel and non obvious that apple's idea by far. Neither deserve nor need patent protection. Each requires their own work and programming to implement, and as long as neither steals source code to do the work, it isn't stealing the mythical "IP".

Quote:
The funny thing is that people like yourself who think MPEG-LA are 'patent trolls' don't seem to understand what the only alternative is. The alternative would be that every company would develop everything themselves, keep it closed-down, publish no specifications, and sue everyone who reverse-engineered it. We've been there already, when half of the internet and video was only useful on Microsoft-based platforms, video standards were utter crap and nothing properly interoperated with other OS's. Back then you couldn't even view *any* video on Linux based systems because everything used licensed technology like WMV or Indeo video. THAT was stifling innovation, not the fact that commercial entities have to pay a few pennies for using H264.

Right. I'm not the organization who turns a deaf ear to Ziph's request for making sure their codec doesn't infringe on MPEG's.

And btw, you can't sue someone for reverse engineering.


Quote:
You saying 'MPEG' in 'MPEG-LA' used to mean something again shows you are making statements about things you simply don't understand. MPEG-LA and MPEG are completely unrelated. MPEG (motion picture experts group) is just a collective that develops and designs all the cool technology you are benefiting from every day. MPEG-LA is the club of companies that paid for that work, invested their money so the MPEG folks could do their work, commissioning them to make better video codecs, ie: funding them, in exactly the same way there are private companies investing money in cancer research and new pharmaceuticals.

The compaines that make up MPEG are the same that comprise MPEG-LA; they setup the "LA" part to make it easier to license the patent and make sure that all involved submitted their slice of the pie.

MPEG-LA going out of its way to get people to submit patents for a codec they have no dealings with for the cynical purpose of protecting their revenue stream isn't what it was meant to do in the first place.

They didn't give two shits about VP6, VP8 or even the ancient VP3 until Google made it popular. Waiting for it to become popular then using your patents to stifle competitors is what this is all about.
post #60 of 175
Google will beat Apple in this area too - the most sued company of all time. With Oracle and MPEG LA clamping on them this decade will see Google beefing up its legal team to new heights. Apple took that reign from Microsoft and now Google is next.
post #61 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjw View Post

Google's search algorithms are secret to protect innovation. They are not patented.

Imagine the apple search business mode:

Build kick ass algorithms

Patent

Sue anyone else that ever creates a search engine for infringement and lay back on innovation.

Um. They methods are certainly patented.

You might want to look into their page rank patent.
post #62 of 175
Excellent. Milk Microsoft... I mean Google for all you can get.
post #63 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patranus View Post

Um. They methods are certainly patented.

You might want to look into their page rank patent.

They licensed it from Stanford university, they do not own it neither would they patent their algorithms because being secret offers them more protection than documenting it, in their case/opinion.
post #64 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

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.

Make no mistake -- what MPEG-LA is doing here is EXACTLY patent trolling. Their explicit goal is to find people who could arguably say Google is infringing on their patents -- patents which were not intentionally infringed on as no one seems to know about them yet. Once they identify these patents, they WILL be demanding Google and anyone else who uses WebM pay them money.

This is textbook patent trolling, and everyone -- no matter how you stand on Apple vs Google -- should be opposed to this. The only people who lose here are consumers.

I'm a professional commercial software developer, working in a field that's heavily using multi-touch interaction. The whole patent situation is an absolute nightmare. We continue to develop software with simple, common sense interfaces only to have Legal come back to us and tell us we need to redesign it to be less intuitive and functional because Google/Apple/Microsoft/Palm/small company has this rather common sense thing patented. It's frustrating, and the consumer loses out 100% of the time.

This kind of patent trolling makes me furious. It's a cartel trying to force everyone to use their technology, or abuse the patent system to make the other technologies still pay them either way.

The worst part of this is it forces everyone to play the game. I've got several patents under my name (for my company), because every little thing we implement we must patent to prevent someone else from patenting it later and suing us over it.
post #65 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabbelen View Post

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.

I think you've got a rosy picture of Apple vs the rest of the world. Apple has filed complaints against my company based on MANY things you would classify as "junk patents". Did you know Apple has a patent for providing user feedback when trying to zoom out too much and the software hits a limit? We tried to add feedback to our app so when we hit the max zoom level, it respected the physical metaphor we were using of stretching something in real life -- when it hits its max stretch level, it stretches out just a little then comes back to the max level. It's very obvious, very intuitive behaviour that Apple has patented. We got a letter soon after shipping software with that functionality from Apple proclaiming they have patented it and wanted to set up some negotiations. Instead, we changed the software to get around it, so now the user doesn't get any feedback when they zoom out too much.

One simple example of MANY we've had to deal with. ALL companies have junk patents, ALL companies enforce them. Apple is no different.
post #66 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

MPEGLA may never charge anyone but the largest of groups any fees, just as it is today.

They charge everyone as it is today.

If you buy Windows 7 or Mac OS X, you're paying MPEG-LA. You just don't realize it. Buy a DVD player, you're paying MPEG-LA. Buy a Bluray player, you're paying MPEG-LA. Buy an iPod or iPhone, you're paying MPEG-LA.
post #67 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpellino View Post

How they can boast about it being an open standard when they refuse to include Safari and IE in their releases. Am I missing a download page?

I don't understand...

Safari and IE are intentionally not including WebM support in their browser.

Safari uses QuickTime for video and IE uses DirectShow for video -- if you install the WebM plugin for these systemwide (which Google has or will make available), they will play in Safari and IE.

The only codec that will not have any way of playing in all browsers will be h264...
post #68 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Realistic View Post

hmmm, 'bullhead' very appropriate.

Why should I imagine mathematic formulas as patentable when they are not? Imagine mother's milk as being poison and that most of us would be dead and not living in your caves. Is either imagined scenario relevant to the the topic? I think not.

this point proves software patents do not affect the rate of innovation. Mathematics is the foundation of all computers...hardware and software. If mathematics were patented, there would be no modern civilization. Glad you agree.


Quote:
Of course I have heard about trademarks and copyrights. I am not an expert on either one and I don't profess to be but I do know that they are not the same as a patent. Our patent rules may be too general in many ways but need revision not abolition. Software patent protection is necessary.

can you give one example of a "good" software patent? I have given you a clear example of mathematics showing how having no patents have led to rapid innovation and competition in basically every field imaginable. With no patents, somehow we have the technology we have today. Imagine that...


Quote:
I also disagree with you on greed because I believe that almost everyone (if not all people's) motive is greed based with the only difference being each individual's level of greed. You may call it whatever you want, to make it more palatable, but when all is said and done all it turns out to be is just a different level of greed.

that is exactly how someone blinded by greed sees it. I develop open source software (over 1500 downloads last week) and license it under the GPL. Explain what my greed is?
post #69 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

They licensed it from Stanford university, they do not own it neither would they patent their algorithms because being secret offers them more protection than documenting it, in their case/opinion.

You're being disingenuous.

Larry Page patented it while at Stanford, so Stanford does technically own the patent. However, Google is the practical owner of the patent as they have perpetual exclusivity to the patent. It is, for all intents and purposes, Google's patent.

http://www.google.com/patents?vid=6285999
post #70 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

They charge everyone as it is today.

If you buy Windows 7 or Mac OS X, you're paying MPEG-LA. You just don't realize it. Buy a DVD player, you're paying MPEG-LA. Buy a Bluray player, you're paying MPEG-LA. Buy an iPod or iPhone, you're paying MPEG-LA.

I happily pay those cents per device to enable innovation.
post #71 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

You're being disingenuous.

Larry Page patented it while at Stanford, so Stanford does technically own the patent. However, Google is the practical owner of the patent as they have perpetual exclusivity to the patent. It is, for all intents and purposes, Google's patent.

http://www.google.com/patents?vid=6285999

They still had to pay for it with shares of stock, and that still doesn't prove the point that the rest of their algorithms are patented.
post #72 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpcg View Post

I happily pay those cents per device to enable innovation.

You're not enabling innovation by paying the cost. Innovation occurs irrespective of patents. Patents are just a way to make money and control software, they do not encourage innovation.

I can't think of a single company that would stop innovating if there were no patents. There's tremendous incentive to innovate -- sales, market position, and brand image.

Personally, patents have prevented me from innovating. I've implemented lots of cool things in the software I develop, and had to remove them because part of it infringes on some vague patent some big company, or some troll company, owns.
post #73 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

They still had to pay for it with shares of stock, and that still doesn't prove the point that the rest of their algorithms are patented.

I'm sorry, but what is your point?

Yes, Google offered stock to Stanford to become the exclusive owner of a patent that Stanford owns that was invented by Larry Page while at Stanford. So what?

As for your other point, why would I address it? It's a pointless argument, and has no bearing on anything.
post #74 of 175
apple have a patent with the iphone which states that when a phone rings you answer it by touching the screen.

How the fuck is that useful for stimulating innovation?
post #75 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

I'm sorry, but what is your point?

Yes, Google offered stock to Stanford to become the exclusive owner of a patent that Stanford owns that was invented by Larry Page while at Stanford. So what?

As for your other point, why would I address it? It's a pointless argument, and has no bearing on anything.

You aren't the OP who brought up that point. The reason why it was brought up was the whole "hypocritical" aspect of google complaining about bing.

Or have you read page one of this thread?
post #76 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

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.

That's not what happened at all. Microsoft was using click-throughs, generally, as data to feed into their relevancy algorithms, and Google fed them bogus data on nonsense terms. The fact that most of the bogus search data Google fed them did not end up in Bing's results shows that they are not actually copying results. It's a huge difference in what they are doing that was hugely, and (beyond any doubt) knowingly misrepresented by Google.
post #77 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpellino View Post

How they can boast about it being an open standard when they refuse to include Safari and IE in their releases. Am I missing a download page?

You're not missing anything.

Q: How do you tell a Google executive is lying?
A: His lips are moving.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjw View Post

Are you really that ill informed? You have just picked the biggest commercial software and stated therefore open source is a tiny fraction.

Are you so stupid not to know that the majority of software that websites run on is open source. Apache dwarf MS in this space. Even the Mac OSX kernel is based an a fork of freeBSD, an open source *UNIX* system.

Apple's webkit browser engine is open source for god sake. I bet you use more open source software every day than you do commercial shit.

That's total bull.

First, your example is wrong. I use Safari - which is based on webkit. Safari is proprietary. Just like all the other browsers based on Webkit.

Second, we were talking about user space - where proprietary software outnumbers 'open' software many fold. Yes, for servers, open source is common, but still doesn't greatly outnumber proprietary software.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

Make no mistake -- what MPEG-LA is doing here is EXACTLY patent trolling. Their explicit goal is to find people who could arguably say Google is infringing on their patents -- patents which were not intentionally infringed on as no one seems to know about them yet. Once they identify these patents, they WILL be demanding Google and anyone else who uses WebM pay them money.

This is textbook patent trolling, and everyone -- no matter how you stand on Apple vs Google -- should be opposed to this. The only people who lose here are consumers.

Nonsense - it's not patent trolling at all. MPEG-LA is responsible for licensing a wide range of patents and codecs. That's their business. As part of that business they have the right to enforce their patents and find infringers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

You're not enabling innovation by paying the cost. Innovation occurs irrespective of patents. Patents are just a way to make money and control software, they do not encourage innovation..

Obviously coming from someone who has never created anything of value.

We live in a free market society. People create things so that they can profit from them. If you remove the profit motive, the incentive for creation drops dramatically. There would be VASTLY less innovation if people couldn't profit from them. Patents help to ensure that people can profit from their innovations.
"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 #78 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

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.

So what?

Aren't Google "open", can't anyone do whatever they want with their search results?

Hypocrisy has a name and that is Google.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #79 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

They licensed it from Stanford university, they do not own it neither would they patent their algorithms because being secret offers them more protection than documenting it, in their case/opinion.

It's a joint Patent because they earned that research as Graduate Students while at Stanford.

By law, all their work was co-owned by Stanford.
post #80 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpcg View Post

I happily pay those cents per device to enable innovation.

And quality, OGG and WebM are horrible, I as a web designer cringe at the thought that my well crafted videos are only being served by those two codecs I would pay extra, myself, to be able to use H.264 (exclusively) and well, I do pay for it anyway since I do own at least five Apple devices and soon to get more. You get what you pay for, I have worked with php solutions for years now and I pay developers gladly for the php shopping carts, or CMS programs. Sure you can get semi-free crap coded in China, but that is what you have, semi-free or cheap crap from China so you spend your precious time to troubleshoot so it will function (maybe).

No, so over it. Just freakin' pay for it, (unless it is Adobe overpriced crap, always on the look out for alternatives for that!)

That said I still have to waste my time to encode a video three times so I can serve it up as html5, it is a major pain, but dealing with Flash is even worse, so I just do it. But I would never, ever, ever, ever, ever, want H264 off the table. In case I wasn't clear, I mean EVER!
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