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 - Page 2

post #41 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.

This would be perfect for Google who like to give everything away and get income via ads. Don't see a problem here?

post #42 of 67

The end result here is quite simple, to me.

 

1. WebM is made illegal. It is removed from the Internet in all locations AT GOOGLE'S EXPENSE and replaced with H.264/5.

2. Google is fined 1 billion dollars.


Originally Posted by hfts View Post
But the mods love him.

 

Hey now. Who ever claimed that?


Edited by Tallest Skil - 3/8/13 at 9:00am

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #43 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

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?)
 

So ... how would companies then pay for the time/money they've spent developing these standards (after which everyone gets to use them for free)? What would then be the incentive to develop them to begin with and/or to all use one standard? Recall all the standards wars of the past? I think H.264 is one where finally *most* everyone got on board (for the good).

 

From everything I've read, Apple is not a significant H.264 patent holder. Apple doesn't even have a majority percentage in the mobile device market (let alone the other areas H.264 is used). The H.264 standard is an industry determined and accepted standard. The decoder chips are embedded in devices everywhere (Blu-Ray players, mobile devices, etc) and that's where the royalties are paid (as well by content producers I believe). Apple is not driving the acceptance of H.264 (or new H.265). At least not in my opinion. They were (are) just going with the industry standard. Google was the one trying to drive it elsewhere.

post #44 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by stike vomit View Post

Classic Dan Diggler piece...

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

DED article,irrelevant.
 

 

Gentlemen, why all the trash talk about DED?  Don't you all know that he has "A decade of experience in technical consulting or employment in information technology, recognized by the University of California to be equivalent to a Master’s Degree in Computer Science"?

 
post #45 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?

 

 

Hey, not all of us can claim to have "A decade of experience in technical consulting or employment in information technology, recognized by the University of California to be equivalent to a Master’s Degree in Computer Science."

 
post #46 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by stike vomit View Post

Brevity is the soul of wit.

 

And wit is the opiate of the online masses.

 
Reply
 
Reply
post #47 of 67

Your idea of FreePatent for Free Products sounds good in theory but is not practical.

 

If this is allowed then large companies will destroy smaller innovative companies with patents for innovation by giving away the product/services free. Large companies have the resources and money to do that. Once the smaller comapnies are out of the way, they can continue/start their devious works.

post #48 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsun Zu View Post

Your idea of FreePatent for Free Products sounds good in theory but is not practical.

 

It's also full of loopholes.  Like, give your product away for free and make money off of advertising revenue and data harvesting.

 
Reply
 
Reply
post #49 of 67
I'll have to admit this is unfortunate. There's only so many ways you can "compress video" with current tech -- and I think Google made an effort to develop WebM without stepping on H264 as much as possible -- but I knew that they'd HAVE TO step on some algorithms or they could never be competitive on compression and playback. It's not like they were Microsoft, who got on the H264 group just so they could sneak what the learned into their own video compression.
post #50 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimrommex View Post



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.


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

 

The chips you link to include a slow chip used in some Archos tablets that nobody uses; the Tegra 3, which is sort of popular (its used in the Surface, Transformer Prime, Nexus 7 and a bunch of tablets that nobody uses); TI's OMAP4 is quite popular but is now a dead end product; and the Exynos 5, which is only used in the Samsung ChromeBook and Nexus 10 tablet. 

 

So you're saying there's broad support for VP8 in hardware? No there's not. There's better support for Flash on Android!

Three years after VP8 (which was not new then!) was "released" by Google, there's scant hardware support. Guess what? There's broad hardware support for MS's VC1 too, but nobody is using it. H.264 is everywhere and has been since before the iPhone appeared in 2007. That's why its the standard everyone uses.

It also sounds like you don't know what a patent pool is. It's not a containment structure. It's a way to simplify licensing all the parts of a standard, when various parties have contributed. If you don't have a pool, you have chaos, because anyone trying to implement that standard can be sued by any number of parties that claim ownership to some part of it.

 

MPEG LA proposed setting up a pool for VP8 to coordinate licensing of the various patents it infringes. Google paid off a licensing deal to avoid this. Your spin on the situation is mind boggling.

 

Even with this "agreement," VP8 has at least 1 MPEG pool member who isn't going along with it (perhaps Nokia?), and there are lots of other patent owners who do not participate in the MPEG pool. That includes Motorola (which is why Google is going around like an asshole trying to sue everyone using H.264 and get injunctions on their products). Now obviously Motorola isn't going to sue Google and its licensees over VP8, but there are lots of other "Motorolas" out there who own patents but who aren't in the MPEG LA pool.

 

Only a moron would implement VP8 commercially. And only a reality challenged person would post the claim that "The 'no hardware decoding' argument was never strong and is even less so now."

 

Are you even aware of how ridiculous that statement is, or do you think that saying stupid things confidently makes them more persuasive? 

post #51 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

 

Even with this "agreement," VP8 has at least 1 MPEG pool member who isn't going along with it (perhaps Nokia?), and there are lots of other patent owners who do not participate in the MPEG pool. That includes Motorola (which is why Google is going around like an asshole trying to sue everyone using H.264 and get injunctions on their products). 

Yet more embellishment. The only company Google has ever sued for IP infringement in the entire history of their company is British Telecom and that happened only a few weeks back. The single Moto IP case that you're obviously trying to use as "evidence" is hardly suing everyone, and filed long before Google even made an offer to buy MM. 

 

There's plenty that Google has really done wrong over the years without continually making stuff up when your arguments begin to fall apart. What's wrong with you just admitting once in a great while " Hey thanks, I didn't know that" ? You look silly running around the edges and pointing somewhere else just to avoid admitting you might have been wrong in a couple of claims. 

 

It's easy to tell you put some effort and research into your article. Kudos. It's also obvious now that at least some small parts of it are inaccurate, You've just kept adding to that category in some of your responses.


Edited by Gatorguy - 3/10/13 at 6:36am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #52 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Yet more embellishment. The only company Google has ever sued for IP infringement in the entire history of their company is British Telecom and that happened only a few weeks back. There's plenty that Google has really done wrong over the years without continually making stuff up when your arguments begin to fall apart. What's wrong with you just admitting once in a great while " Hey thanks, I didn't know that" ? You look silly running around the edges and pointing somewhere else just to avoid admitting you might have been wrong in a couple of claims. 

 

It's easy to tell you put some effort and research into your article. Kudos. It's also obvious now that at least some small parts of it are inaccurate, You've just kept adding to that category in some of your responses.

 

Conveniently ignoring suits by Google subsidiaries, which they allowed to proceed,  and transfer of IP to allow others to sue. All that proves is that they are deceitful and more than willing to sue by proxy. But, hey, that's all part of the Big Lie Google propaganda facade that GG works so hard to help prop up for them.

 

If Google says it, or GG writes it here, you know the truth is probably something else.

post #53 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

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.

Wrong. Skype uses it for video calls. Support was first added in 2010.
post #54 of 67
Google is a bunch of thieving carpet baggers that steal others IP and gobble up smaller innovative companies IP and call it there innovation. All while they compile identity files on you to sell you as a commodity to advertisers. I used to use them a lot but now shun anything to do with them. By the way they did not win the oracle lawsuit, just the first round as oracle is now back in appeals court with a new trial set. This one they have a good chance of winning.

Googles lack of integrity and honesty even puts microsoft to shame.

"Do No Evil" Ya Sure.
post #55 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post

 

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.

 

More than likely because they  are using techniques from the new H.265 codec, just like they ripped off H.264.

post #56 of 67

Yes its true that google never admitted infringement but that was just a matter of time before they were hauled into court and they knew it.  Thats why they accepted a license.  The MPEG LA group started collecting a patent pool of infringed patents that were used by VP8.  11 patents were entered in the pool as being infringed.  Hence the reason that "DO NO EVIL"  Google accepted a license.  That pool was started back in 2011.  

 

Here is a link to an article from zdnet and the announcement from MPEG LA is in that article.

 

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/first-legal-shots-fired-at-googles-vp8-codec/2992

 

 

To quote the MPEG LA from that article

 

 

 

Quote:
The license offered by MPEG LA charges a royalty for decoders wherever or however deployed. In addition, no one in the market should be under the misimpression that other codecs such as Theora are patent-free. Virtually all codecs are based on patented technology, and many of the essential patents may be the same as those that are essential to AVC/H.264. Therefore, users should be aware that a license and payment of applicable royalties is likely required to use these technologies developed by others, too.

Notice that the first and second sentences declare how MPEG LA feels about Theora/VP8: 

 

Quote:
The license offered by MPEG LA charges a royalty for decoders wherever or however deployed. In addition, no one in the market should be under the misimpression that other codecs such as Theora are patent-free.

 

The above quote goes on to say that VP8/Theora like all other technologies include H.264 licensed technologies and therefore cannot be given away for free like google wanted to do, and that a license fee for the H.264 patents needs to be paid.  Either by google or the people using Theora/VP8.  They had no choice but to take a valid license.  Or fight in court which was coming.

 

Google should count themselves lucky that the MPEG LA did not charge them back fees for infringement of those patents.  They very well could have.


Edited by Mechanic - 3/10/13 at 1:29pm
post #57 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanic View Post

Yes its true that google never admitted infringement but that was just a matter of time before they were hauled into court and they knew it.  Thats why they accepted a license.  The MPEG LA group started collecting a patent pool of infringed patents that were used by VP8.  11 patents were entered in the pool as being infringed.  Hence the reason that "DO NO EVIL"  Google accepted a license.  That pool was started back in 2011.  

 

Here is a link to an article from zdnet and the announcement from MPEG LA is in that article.

 

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/first-legal-shots-fired-at-googles-vp8-codec/2992

 

 

The above quote goes on to say that VP8/Theora like all other technologies include H.264 licensed technologies and therefore cannot be given away for free like google wanted to do, and that a license fee for the H.264 patents needs to be paid.  Either by google or the people using Theora/VP8.  They had no choice but to take a valid license.  Or fight in court which was coming.

 

Google should count themselves lucky that the MPEG LA did not charge them back fees for infringement of those patents.  They very well could have.

Proof that you're incorrect: MPEG-LA gave Google the OK to give it away for free just like Google wanted to do. As for Theora if they are infringing then MPEG-LA should have gone after them. It's telling that they have not in the years and years it's been available.

 

The article you linked from a couple years back is more IP-holder bluff and bluster than anything else IMO. If MPEG-LA was so absolutely certain of IP infringement I don't see why they would offer Google a transferrable royalty-free license and no back fees. Does that really make any sense to you? Instead I personally think that MPEG-LA wasn't willing to roll the dice to see what they had, nor was Google. Thus a license but on extremely Google-favorable terms. 


Edited by Gatorguy - 3/10/13 at 3:12pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #58 of 67

The main objective for Google was to ensure that encoded videos can be watched freely by users without a royalty. People might not remember this - but MPEG LA only announced in August 2010 that users could watch *free* videos encoded in the H.264 standard without paying a royalty.

 

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/h-264-goes-royalty-free-forever/9489

 

Otherwise, Google would have had to subsidize each YouTube video or require users to pay a subscription fee.

 

This royalty-free license does not apply for commercial videos (such as wedding videos etc).

 

Incidentally, MPEG LA announced their decision a few months after Google freed the VP8 codec. It's very likely that the existence of WebM drove this decision because the MPEG LA is generally not known for its altruism.

 

So the right question is not why WebM did not overtake H.264. The right question is what the MPEG LA would have done in 2010 if WebM had not existed.

 

So it seems that Google achieved its main objective already: making sure that MPEG LA would not charge YouTube users (or extract these royalties from Google). This seems like 100+ million dollars well spent.

 

Whether VP8/VP9 replaces H.264 is less important - sure it would be the icing on the cake from Google's perspective because it remove restrictions on non-free videos. 

post #59 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMushroom View Post

The main objective for Google was to ensure that encoded videos can be watched freely by users without a royalty. People might not remember this - but MPEG LA only announced in August 2010 that users could watch *free* videos encoded in the H.264 standard without paying a royalty.

MPEG-LA in no way was charging users to watch free videos.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #60 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


MPEG-LA in no way was charging users to watch free videos.

 

They announced in February 2010 that free Internet Broadcast would remain royalty-free until December 2015 - but they only made it permanent in August 2010.

 

Moreover, this only applies to Internet Broadcast videos and not to products that encode or decode video (such as program that play H.264 video).

 

Having your own codec which is almost as good as H.264 can be a useful threat against the MPEG LA  - especially if your business depends to a large extent on free videos, video ads etc. 

 

There is a reason that Microsoft does not ship Windows 8 with DVD player software - you have to purchase this option for an extra $9.99. It's expensive due to the licensing rates.

post #61 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.


The original article claims that Google will have to "continue to subsidize" VP8 in order for VP8 to be less expensive than H.264.

 

 

[edit: Missing word in this paragraph]

That statement is not true:  VP8 will continue to be available to developers and users royalty-free; Google's recent agreement simply clarifies the fact that this continued royalty-free distribution is no longer subject to any uncertainty or doubt with respect to the possibility of claims of unlicensed infringement of any patents held by members of the MPEG-LA.  This deal will also apply to the next major iteration of the VPX codec -- namely, VP9.

 

We now have a perpetual guarantee that the MPEG-LA will not attempt to seek any royalties on VP8 nor on the forthcoming VP9.


Edited by lfmorrison - 3/11/13 at 6:02am
post #62 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


MPEG-LA in no way was charging users to watch free videos.


No; the end-user has never been charged directly.

 

The MPEG-LA has three points where it charges royalties for the H.264 codec:

1) for making hardware and/or software that can CREATE H.264 video;

2) for making hardware and/or software that can DECODE H.264 video;

3) for DISTRIBUTION or BROADCAST of content containing H.264 video.

 

Parts (1) and (2) are now, and always have been, in full effect.  The fee is buried further up the supply chain, so the end-user is never directly aware of it.

 

Part (3) is now royalty-free for people hosting H.264-encoded videos that are distributed to the end-user on a website for free; websites that host H.264-video that the user has to pay for are still subject to H.264 distribution royalties.  Again, the end-user probably isn't aware that the web host is being charged this fee, but the money's gotta come from somewhere.


Edited by lfmorrison - 3/11/13 at 6:04am
post #63 of 67

So then MPEG-LA has granted terms to Google for VP8 similar to what they have worked out for H.264-- free forever.

 

So then why do we need VP8, again?  Wasn't the idea that H.264 was "patent encumbered", and it didn't matter what MPEG-LA said because you just never knew how things might work out and anyway, real open devotees just couldn't stomach even the idea of patents, no matter what agreements might get made?

 

I mean, we remember, right?  Those were the arguments being made.  Apple was bad because they had a finger in the H.264 pie and the horrible world of proprietary formats, Google was good because VP8 was "open."

 

So here we are.  What does VP8 do for me that H.264 doesn't, other than help Google control the internet?  How is VP8 morally superior to H.264?

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #64 of 67
Quote:
"This agreement is not an acknowledgment that the licensed techniques read on VP8."
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06631.html

Neither party made any acknowledgement that VP8 actually violates the patents. Resolving this in court would have been expensive and risky for both parties, so they agreed to a settlement that is probably less expensive for Google than a regular license, and guarantees MPEG LA that they don't lose and get left with nothing. Even if Google eventually won in court, WebM would have suffered in the meantime because of the licensing ambiguity. Google obviously felt it was worth paying to settle this sooner, regardless of whether they believe WebM actually violates any of the patents.
post #65 of 67

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 7/21/13 at 4:32pm
post #66 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

So then MPEG-LA has granted terms to Google for VP8 similar to what they have worked out for H.264-- free forever.

 

So then why do we need VP8, again?  Wasn't the idea that H.264 was "patent encumbered", and it didn't matter what MPEG-LA said because you just never knew how things might work out and anyway, real open devotees just couldn't stomach even the idea of patents, no matter what agreements might get made?

 

I mean, we remember, right?  Those were the arguments being made.  Apple was bad because they had a finger in the H.264 pie and the horrible world of proprietary formats, Google was good because VP8 was "open."

 

So here we are.  What does VP8 do for me that H.264 doesn't, other than help Google control the internet?  How is VP8 morally superior to H.264?

 

VP8 and its successor is free for all purposes - not just internet broadcasting (decoding of free internet broadcasting videos is the only exception that MPEG LA has granted for the use of H.264 - everything else requires payment of royalties).

 

VP8 is free for building encoders, commercial video etc.

 

If VP8 has similar quality as H.264 it will limit the ability of MPEG LA to charge for H.264 even if VP8 will never replace H.264.

post #67 of 67
It's curious.

When individuals pirate, steal and pillage the IP of other individuals or corporations (cracked software, illegaly downloaded music, films, books, etc) the vox populi rises up in triumphant support.

When a corporation does it....not so much.

Ah, the sweet smell of hypocrisy in the morning.
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