or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google admits its VP8/WebM codec infringes MPEG H.264 patents
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google admits its VP8/WebM codec infringes MPEG H.264 patents

post #1 of 67
Thread Starter 
Almost three years after Google released its WebM video encoding technology as a "free" and open alternative to the existing H.264 backed by Apple and others, it has admitted its position was wrong and that it would pay to license the patents WebM infringes.

History of codecs


Google released WebM in 2010 after acquiring proprietary video compression tools vendor On2; it subsequently released that company's VP8 technology as a "licensing free" competitor to the International Standard Organization's established MPEG H.264 technology.

The announcement delighted some members of the open source community, particularly Opera and Mozilla, neither of which wanted to pay licensing fees for their use (or their users' use) of H.264. Both had previously supported Ogg Theora, an older and even less capable codec.

Google hoped to leverage its own strong position in web video, including its YouTube video sharing service and its popular Chrome web browser, to force adoption of WebM across the web. However, WebM had serious flaws, the largest of which is that it infringed upon H.264 patents itself.

After years of legal maneuvering, Google has now agreed to license the H.264 patents that WebM infringes.

"This is a significant milestone in Google?s efforts to establish VP8 as a widely-deployed web video format,? said Allen Lo, Google?s deputy general counsel for patents in a press release. ?We appreciate MPEG LA?s cooperation in making this happen.?

The latest Google IO announcement to collapse in failure



However, WebM faces serious other problems apart from its patent infringement. The legal quandary Google erected by failing to properly license MPEG's technology from the start means that it hasn't seen any significant traction from third parties, preventing any of these issues (including a lack of hardware decoder support) from actually being addressed over the past three years.

Just after Google launched WebM to great enthusiasm, AppleInsider reported that the new codec was being criticized by video developers, with one of whom, Jason Garrett-Glaser, "noting that it decodes video slowly, is buggy, and copies H.264 closely enough to all but guarantee patent issues."

This report received scorn by many who wished Google's plan would work out. But when Apple's Steve Jobs was asked about Google's WebM, he forwarded the person a copy of the Garrett-Glaser critique detailing WebM's problems in a clear endorsement of the logic explaining why no commercial vendor, particularly Apple, would adopt a less capable, flawed, and patent encumbered technology that only exists to unfairly compete against legitimate software and to give Google virtually unilateral power over the standards setting process.

Google's efforts to propagate WebM were similar to Microsoft's parallel efforts to push its own VC-1 codec (used in Windows Media Player and the ill fated HD-DVD) at the expense of H.264, which had the support of the rest of the industry and was developed in a partnership between vendors, rather than foist upon the web as something everyone else would have to accept. Like WebM, VC-1 was also found to infringe upon MPEG patents, derailing Microsoft's plans and resulting in its increased support for H.264 going forward.

Even ignoring patent issues, Google has faced poor adoption of a wide range of technologies it has promoted at its annual Google IO conference, starting with Google Wave in 2009; Android 3.0 Honeycomb tablets, Google Buzz and Google TV in 2010; ChromeOS, ChromeBooks and the Chrome Web Store in 2011 and Google+ and Nexus Q in 2012.

Google's second Flash



Despite these parallel failures, Google has worked hard to push WebM, defining it as the exclusive, required codec of Google's emerging WebRTC specification for web-based voice and video chat. The company also tried to make WebM the exclusive video plugin for Chrome.

However, the chips used by most smartphones and other mobile devices don't support WebM, making it much less efficient to present on any mobile device, as the devices must do all the decoding work in software. WebM also doesn't work on iOS devices at all, requiring anyone who wants to use it (and not exclude the vast majority of mobile video users worldwide) to also encode their videos in H.264, too, the same sort of "solution" proposed by proponents of preserving Adobe Flash on the web.

Mozilla and Opera initially also tried to prevent the use of H.264, but have since capitulated to support H.264 as a standard, leaving Google's WebM in virtually the same position it had as a new 1.0 product three years ago, but without any excitement surrounding it. This essentially makes WebM the equivalent of Flash in 2010: resolved of legal challenges but saddled with technical and performance issues, and incompatible with any devices running iOS.

Google to keep working on competitor to H.265



Going forward, Google plans to keep working on a new version of WebM called VP9, while the rest of the industry prepares to leap to MPEG's next generation H.265. Both new codecs promise to deliver similar video quality at around half the data rate (but requiring as much as three times the data processing capability), according to a report by Tsahi Levent-Levi.



That report also cited data presented by Google that said the the company's upcoming VP9 "is ~7% behind HEVC/H.265 in terms of quality/bitrate when they tested VP9 in Q4 of 2011 (They started developing VP9 in Q3 2011). Their goal is to become even better than HEVC."

While Google continues its efforts to splinter development on video technology going forward, mobile chip developers (such as Qualcomm, above) have a vested interest in incorporating new codec technology that will enable more efficient video at smaller file sizes, something that mobile carriers also want to see.

While Google was previously able to offer WebM as a "licensing free" alternative to H.264, its new licensing agreement means that WebM and its future versions can only offer a cheaper alternative if Google chooses to subsidize the technology. Apple, Microsoft, Cisco, network operators and chip producers will continue to pay the relatively low "Fair, Reasonable and NonDiscriminatory" fees collected by patent owners behind the MPEG H.264/265 pool in order to keep the pace of video technology moving.

Apple may add support for H.265 as soon as the next generation of its A7 chips, as it has aggressively adopted new standards (such as 802.11n wireless networking), often even before they have reached final status as official specifications.
post #2 of 67
How much will they be charged in back licenses and penalties? This should be used as justification to re-visit every lawsuit Google won and lost to verify they told the truth instead of lying like they did about H.264. Everyone knows Google stole everything about all their software and this begins the proof. Let's see what the market does after this news--probably goes up because the market sides with the cheaters.
post #3 of 67
So that's a waste of $133 million dollars or are we living in a time when a company can blatantly steal from another *cough* Samsung *cough* yet profit handsomely despite clear and rampant violations?

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #4 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

So that's a waste of $133 million dollars or are we living in a time when a company can blatantly steal from another *cough* Samsung *cough* yet profit handsomely despite clear and rampant violations?

If you can't beat them, copy them.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #5 of 67
Why admit it now and not before?
How about admitting that Google stole Java technologies for Oracle and iOS technologies from Apple?
post #6 of 67

Read the press release.

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130307006192/en/Google-MPEG-LA-Announce-Agreement-Covering-VP8

 

"Google Inc. and MPEG LA, LLC announced today that they have entered into agreements granting Google a license to techniques that may be essential to VP8 and earlier-generation VPx video compression technologies under patents owned by 11 patent holders."

 

Sound like the right move to avoid any possible legal entanglements. Rather than take a chance that any of the IP does end up being deemed essential just go ahead a take a license if it's cheap enough. So far MPEG is only saying they might have IP essential to WebM, not that it's been proven to be so. 

 

It's the right thing to do, avoiding yet another unnecessary IP case. I'd be surprised if MPEG-LA is demanding back royalties with this voluntary agreement but anything is possible. AI is stretching the truth by saying anyone admitted or claimed there was any certain patent infringement.


Edited by Gatorguy - 3/7/13 at 3:44pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #7 of 67

WebM was fucking stupid the moment it was announced, and simply a way for Google to try to sabotage where web video was going, H.264, thanks to Apple. The same reason it decided to bake flash into its web browser, which did nothing but sabotage the transition of flash to better technologies and slow this down- all to spite Apple. It's disgusting. 

post #8 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post

Why admit it now and not before?
How about admitting that Google stole Java technologies for Oracle and iOS technologies from Apple?

They won the Oracle case so why would they?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #9 of 67
dirtbag Google. Makes me wonder wonder other patented tech Google usurped for it's own benefit.
post #10 of 67

but... infringement and stealing is not evil. So they can keep using their company motto. 

post #11 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Read the press release.
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130307006192/en/Google-MPEG-LA-Announce-Agreement-Covering-VP8

"Google Inc. and MPEG LA, LLC announced today that they have entered into agreements granting Google a license to techniques that may be essential to VP8 and earlier-generation VPx video compression technologies under patents owned by 11 patent holders."


Sound like the right move to avoid any possible legal entanglements. Rather than take a chance that any of the IP does end up being deemed essential just go ahead a take a license if it's cheap enough. So far MPEG is only saying they might have IP essential to WebM, not that it's been proven to be so. 


It's the right thing to do, avoiding yet another unnecessary IP case. I'd be surprised if MPEG-LA is demanding back royalties with this voluntary agreement but anything is possible. AI is stretching the truth by saying anyone admitted or claimed there was any certain patent infringement.

It's nice to see Google being open, especially at how VP9 is behind HEVC.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #12 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

So that's a waste of $133 million dollars or are we living in a time when a company can blatantly steal from another *cough* Samsung *cough* yet profit handsomely despite clear, rampant and repetitive violations?

 

I fixed that for you.

 

(By the way, that's a nasty cough you've got there)

If you want to make enemies, try to change something.
Reply
If you want to make enemies, try to change something.
Reply
post #13 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

It's nice to see Google being open, especially at how VP9 is behind HEVC.

 

I agree.

 

Google are most definitely extremely open once caught.

If you want to make enemies, try to change something.
Reply
If you want to make enemies, try to change something.
Reply
post #14 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

(By the way, that's a nasty cough you've got there)

The benefit of this cough is that it's nothing you haven't seen before.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #15 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

The benefit of this cough is that it's nothing you haven't seen before.

 

Yes, but if I had symptoms that occurred so frequently and often I'd go see a doctor... 

 

1wink.gif

If you want to make enemies, try to change something.
Reply
If you want to make enemies, try to change something.
Reply
post #16 of 67

To be fair to Google, this doesn't actually look like an admission that they've been violating, merely licensing as a safety net to prevent litigation from happening at all.

 

Although when considering strong impressions that Android copied iOS, and Dalvik copied Java, it does lend to a pattern that is blindly ignored by the rest of the tech community who think Google can do no wrong.

post #17 of 67

"making it much less inefficient to present on any mobile device"

I think AI means "more inefficient" or else "less efficient". One or the other.

 

I'm all over that automated slave today. Argggh!

post #18 of 67
I thought h265 was demoed on the iPad 3 last year. But DeD says it may be in the A7, so I assume the a5x (as rumoured for new appleTV) isn't particularly 'ready' for it?
post #19 of 67

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 7/21/13 at 4:29pm
post #20 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregAlexander View Post

I thought h265 was demoed on the iPad 3 last year. But DeD says it may be in the A7, so I assume the a5x (as rumoured for new appleTV) isn't particularly 'ready' for it?

I remember it some oddball tablet with a Qualcomm chip but not with an iPad.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #21 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post
While Google was previously able to offer WebM as a "licensing free" alternative to H.264, its new licensing agreement means that WebM and its future versions can only offer a cheaper alternative if Google chooses to subsidize the technology. 

Not true either. Google negotiated a very good license, with those 11 MPEG-LA patent holders agreeing  "that any patented techniques used by VP8 can be used without payment of a royalty, forever."

 

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/03/google-mpeg-la-agree-to-royalty-free-terms-for-vp8-video-codec/

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #22 of 67

Google's adoption of WebM that split the video support of H.264 based on a flawed knock-off has pushed video software back by years.

Dealing with this nonsense has been a colossal pain for video software developers.

Thanks, Google.

post #23 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Not true either. Google negotiated a very good license, with those 11 MPEG-LA patent holders agreeing  "that any patented techniques used by VP8 can be used without payment of a royalty, forever."

 

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/03/google-mpeg-la-agree-to-royalty-free-terms-for-vp8-video-codec/

 

That's a strangely out of context quote you made there. Pity you'd go so far out of your way to cite one line of an Ars story to claim "NOT TRUE!!!" when you have to know you are purposely disgorging false information yourself.

 

Google paid money for this, and there are more than 11 MPEG members aggrieved by VP8's use of H.264 pool's "patented techniques."

 

Do you even listen to yourself? 

 

Google is good at covering over its guilt, but to said there was no admission of infringement makes you look like an idiot. 

 

Not that any of it matters. Nobody uses VP8, and nobody is going to suddenly flock to an inferior product just because it still exists 3 years after its failed launch. 

post #24 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

 

That's a strangely out of context quote you made there. Pity you'd go so far out of your way to cite one line of an Ars story to claim "NOT TRUE!!!" when you have to know you are purposely disgorging false information yourself.

 

Google paid money for this, and there are more than 11 MPEG members aggrieved by VP8's use of H.264 pool's "patented techniques."

 

Do you even listen to yourself? 

 

Google is good at covering over its guilt, but to said there was no admission of infringement makes you look like an idiot. 

 

Then simply post the reference where Google admits they infringed any MPEG-LA IP relating to WebM. You can't of course. So why write as fact that they admitted to infringement? Why write that WebM was found to infringe on any MPEG-LA patents? And what is there for Google to "subsidize" if the MPEG-LA patent license is royalty-free? None of those three claims you made appear to be true.

 

It would have been just as good a news story without embellishing it.

 

One thing you wrote I can agree with: It's not likely that VP8 is suddenly going to attract wide adoption due to the new licensing agreement. That ship already sailed and H.265 is the preferred video codec.


Edited by Gatorguy - 3/7/13 at 5:29pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #25 of 67
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

WebM was fucking stupid the moment it was announced, and simply a way for Google to try to sabotage where web video was going, H.264, thanks to Apple. The same reason it decided to bake flash into its web browser, which did nothing but sabotage the transition of flash to better technologies and slow this down- all to spite Apple. It's disgusting. 

 

Exactly.  Google really is the "new Microsoft."  MS tried to "embrace, extend, and extinguish" Java.  Google tried the same with H.264.  Here are the three steps, quoted directly from the Wikipedia article:

 

 

"The strategy's three phases are:

  1. Embrace: Development of software substantially compatible with a competing product, or implementing a public standard.
  2. Extend: Addition and promotion of features not supported by the competing product or part of the standard, creating interoperability problems for customers who try to use the 'simple' standard.
  3. Extinguish: When extensions become a de facto standard because of their dominant market share, they marginalize competitors that do not or cannot support the new extensions."

 

Didn't work for Microsoft when they tried to distort and kill off Java.  They were sued successfully by Sun Microsystems in 2002 and settled out-of-court for $2 billion.

 

Didn't work for Google either, in their attempts to subvert and/or sidestep H.264.

 

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #26 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


It's nice to see Google being open, especially at how VP9 is behind HEVC.

 

They started development in Q3 2011...  By Q4 2011 they were only 7% slower than the 'future' standard which had been in development for some time.  It is actually quite impressive.  If they can build something faster, I say great.  I like video.  If not, stick with the existing standard.  Simple enough.

post #27 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifij775 View Post

Google's adoption of WebM that split the video support of H.264 based on a flawed knock-off has pushed video software back by years.

Dealing with this nonsense has been a colossal pain for video software developers.

Thanks, Google.

 

Pretty much. A clear example of Google not acting in the best interests of consumers, but only to sabotage competitors. Same thing with baking in flash into chrome, right when other browsers like IE, safari, and mobile platform were dropping it completely. Due to the popularity of chrome, it slowed the momentum of flash dying and other solutions taking hold. Strange, since Google is such an advocate of "open" why it would prop up such a plugin, which is mobile ufriendly and just happens to be a security nightmare. No, it's actually not strange- it shows that Google at its core is incredibly hypocritical, and only uses buzzwords like "open" when it suits them, and when they have another agenda, like sabotaging Apple and making them look bad, they'll happily prop up a dying technology like flash. 

post #28 of 67
"They won the Oracle case so why would they?"

THe jury found Google guilty. The judge ruled (incorrectly IMO and that of many others supporting the ORCL appeal) that API software was no patentable. The jusry did not deliver a verdict on "fair use". IMO appeal will overturn judge on patentability and remand the case to the court. I bleie a nerw trial will be required on "fair use", which Google's use was not. In the end, this case may require a rewrite of Android along with some steep penalties - although it may end up being the phone makers who pay.
post #29 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post

"making it much less inefficient to present on any mobile device"

I think AI means "more 
inefficient" or else "less 
efficient". One or the other.


I'm all over that automated slave today. Argggh!

Proof reading is dead.

They still haven't fixed it. This site has the greatest number of grammatical & spelling mistakes in one place I've seen that aren't blatantly ESL. No shame, I guess.
post #30 of 67
Quote:
However, the chips used by most smartphones and other mobile devices don't support WebM, making it much less inefficient to present on any mobile device, as the devices must do all the decoding work in software.



No. The first SoCs with VP8 support were available over two years ago:

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/rockchip-and-webm-release-rk29xx----worlds-first-soc-to-support-webm-hd-video-playback-in-hardware-113069829.html

Rockwell supports it, Nvidia supports it (http://www.nvidia.com/object/tegra-3-processor.html), Texas Instruments supports it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ObBu6FjpR0), Samsung supports it (http://www.androidauthority.com/samsung-exynos-5-dual-specs-features-106609/), etc. The "no hardware decoding" argument was never strong and is even less so now.
 

 

Quote:
While Google was previously able to offer WebM as a 'licensing free' alternative to H.264, its new licensing agreement means that WebM and its future versions can only offer a cheaper alternative if Google chooses to subsidize the technology.

 


Google will be licensing VP8 and VP9 under royalty-free terms, exactly as they are currently doing. All that's changed is that the MPEG LA has given up its attempt at forming a VP8 patent pool after two years of trying. The MPEG LA has failed to control the license for VP8 and the future VP9. See:

http://blog.webmproject.org/2013/03/vp8-and-mpeg-la.html

post #31 of 67

The thing that pisses me off about Googles actions here is that but for them (and the ever standards un-compliant Microsoft), this is an example of technology companies just being flat out sensible and understanding that standards are great, in certain areas.  MPEG group do a good job of corralling things in a way that allows consumers to benefit, but Google have to come along, pretending not to be evil, trying to control everything themselves.

 

Aside from that, one thing in this article got me thinking - the reference to Flash.  Can you remember just how much of a big deal not having Flash on the iPhone was made out to be?  Seems incredible now that it was ever a discussion.

post #32 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

That's a strangely out of context quote you made there. Pity you'd go so far out of your way to cite one line of an Ars story to claim "NOT TRUE!!!" when you have to know you are purposely disgorging false information yourself.

Google paid money for this, and there are more than 11 MPEG members aggrieved by VP8's use of H.264 pool's "patented techniques."


Do you even listen to 
yourself? 


Google is good at covering over its guilt, but to said there was no admission of infringement makes you look like an idiot. 

Not that any of it matters. Nobody uses VP8, and nobody is going to suddenly flock to an inferior product just because it still exists 3 years after its failed launch. 
Well caught.
He lies all the time, just posts URL after bloody URL.
Hoping that no one checks and digs deeper
Never a cohesive or intelligent post, ever.
But the mods love him.
post #33 of 67

I honestly don't understand why Google is even attempting to do this? I can understand why someone like Mozilla (non-profit, open source, anti-proprietary ideology) would care, but why would Google put so much money and effort into this? consumer-grade video codecs seem like the perfect use case for a single, widely supported industry standard which we have with MPEG-LA. Unless they were charging wholly unreasonable fees for licensing, what is gained by making an alternative codec?

post #34 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfts View Post

Well caught.
He lies all the time, just posts URL after bloody URL.
Hoping that no one checks and digs deeper
Never a cohesive or intelligent post, ever.
But the mods love him.

 

Gatorguy: the original wolf in sheep's clothing.

 

He attempts to be perceived as a well-rounded, reasonable individual, but his true nature is that of a biased jerk.


Edited by GTR - 3/8/13 at 1:50am
If you want to make enemies, try to change something.
Reply
If you want to make enemies, try to change something.
Reply
post #35 of 67
This article is living in bizarro world.

After a decade of the MPEG LA saying they were coming to destroy the FOSS codec movement, with none other than the late Steve Jobs himself chiming in, today the Licensing Authority announced what we already knew.

They got nothing.

There will be no Theora patent pool. There will be no VP8 patent pool. There will be no VPnext patent pool.

I always knew that, but I never, in a million years, expected them to put it in writing and walk away. The wording suggests Google paid some money to grease this along, and the agreement wording is interesting [and instructive] but make no mistake: Google won. Full stop.

When MPEG LA first announced the VP8 pool formation, a rush of companies applied to be in the pool, partly because everyone wanted to see what everyone else had. That gave way to some amount of disappointment. And by 'some amount' I mean 'rather a lot really, more than the MPEG-LA would care to admit.'

Eventually, things whittled down to a few holdouts. Those '11 patent holders' do not assert they have patents that cover the spec. They said '_may_ cover'. The press release itself repeats this. Then these patent holders said 'and we're willing to make that vague threat go away for a little cash'. That little cash was far less than what it would cost to litigate a winning case. Google paid the cash. This is what lawyers do. If those 11 patent holders had a strong claim, it is exceedingly unlikely they would have agreed to a perpetual royalty free license.

That's why it's a huge newsworthy deal when companies like NewEgg actually take the more expensive out and litigate a patent. It is always more expensive than settling, even if you'd win the case, and very few companies are willing or able to do it. Google was probably able, but not willing.

We deal with this in the IETF all the time. Someone files a draft and a slew of companies file IPR statements that claim they have patents that 'may' read on the draft. Unlike other SDOs though, the IETF requires them to actually list the patent numbers so we can analyze and refute. And despite unequivocal third-party analyses stating 'there is no possibility patent X applies', these companies still present their discredited IPR statements to 'customers' and mention that these customers may be sued if they don't license. This is not the exception; this is standard operating procedure in the industry. These licensing tactics, for example, account for more than half of Qualcomm's total corporate income.

It's this last threat that Google paid a nominal sum to make go away. It's the best anyone can hope for in a broken system.
Edited by xiphmont - 3/7/13 at 11:19pm
post #36 of 67

This isn't a problem for Google. They can pay the patent, and in case they couldn't, then they can change the codec they use in a very short timeframe because they've the resources to do so.

 

It is a problem for small developers, though. The motivation behind patents is protecting individual inventors. But it's become the opposite: a market for buying and selling IP, where none of the parties have nothing to do with inventors.

 

Patents should be bound to the income generated by the product. If a product is free, patents should be allowed to be used free-of-charge, provided that the name of the inventor is acknowledged, and the patent is mentioned in the product info together with the inventor's name.

 

If the product isn't free, the patent should be payed as a percentage of the product income, to the inventor. Never more money than the generated income, as this would be nonsense (patents are meant to protect the inventor, so that he gets the benefit that the patent produces, and not more benefit... it's nonsense to pay more than the benefit it generated).

 

Patents shouldn't be transferable. It's nonsense to pay a royalty to somebody who didn't invent the patent.

 

If patents were like this, their real motivation would be guaranteed.

post #37 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by stike vomit View Post

Classic Dan Diggler piece...

 

I like Dan's articles they are well researched.
How come you are not hired by AI to write articles?
I know why, is because you have nothing of value to share with others.
Just one-liner swarmy obnoxious remarks.
post #38 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfts View Post


I like Dan's articles they are well researched.
How come you are not hired by AI to write articles?
I know why, is because you have nothing of value to share with others.
Just one-liner swarmy obnoxious remarks.

Brevity is the soul of wit.

 

Your typical multi-paragraph hateful bullshit, on the other hand, is anything but.


Edited by stike vomit - 3/8/13 at 6:00am
post #39 of 67
DED article,irrelevant.

"However, the chips used by most smartphones and other mobile devices don't support WebM, making it much less efficient to present on any mobile device, as the devices must do all the decoding work in software." only really good sentence here.

It says "Apple's smartphones, the milestone setters in this industry with virtually no competitors, have killed Google's effort to establish a good software replacement for H264".

Two notes: I don't actually like Web-M, and I believe that standards for transmitting information (which includes video) should be free (even if it means having to download a one-click installer which will compile the decoder on your machine). That's the idea Internet is based on, and without that idea, no iPhone, no iPad, no website.
It's ridiculous that it's even debated that some organism might be able to earn $$$ out of standards, as it means the guy with the most firepower (currently apple, but who knows who will be in three years?)

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

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

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

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #40 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecs View Post

This isn't a problem for Google. They can pay the patent, and in case they couldn't, then they can change the codec they use in a very short timeframe because they've the resources to do so.

It is a problem for small developers, though. The motivation behind patents is protecting individual inventors. But it's become the opposite: a market for buying and selling IP, where none of the parties have nothing to do with inventors.

Patents should be bound to the income generated by the product. If a product is free, patents should be allowed to be used free-of-charge, provided that the name of the inventor is acknowledged, and the patent is mentioned in the product info together with the inventor's name.

If the product isn't free, the patent should be payed as a percentage of the product income, to the inventor. Never more money than the generated income, as this would be nonsense (patents are meant to protect the inventor, so that he gets the benefit that the patent produces, and not more benefit... it's nonsense to pay more than the benefit it generated).

Patents shouldn't be transferable. It's nonsense to pay a royalty to somebody who didn't invent the patent.

If patents were like this, their real motivation would be guaranteed.

i Really like your idea about the free product means free patent use ...except Google's android operating system is "free"...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google admits its VP8/WebM codec infringes MPEG H.264 patents