It's by definition patent trolling. Even your justification for it is EXACTLY what patent trolls do. Patent trolls buy up patents and make a business out of their "right to enforce their patents and find infringers".
A patent troll is a name for a patent holder that has no intent to use their patent, and just tries to extort money out of those who it thinks are.
MPEG LA represents Sony, Philips, Apple, Microsoft and a long list of other companies that actually make products. So to refer to it as a "patent troll" just because you like Google is misinformed, ignorant, contradictory, and hysterically prejudiced against reality.
The fact is that certain "open source" advocates promote code theft and deny the existence of intellectual property, yet turn around and insist that their code is protected by the GPL and can't be appropriated against their intentions by others. Grossly hypocritical.
Might as well be rich landlord communists. Your position fundamentally makes no sense.
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.
Ugh, you sir are an ID10T. Just because the front-end of your browser is not open-source does not make it open-source underpinnings irrelevant. Let me give you an example (safari): WebKit, sqlite, xar, and gcc. Safari is also linked against a number of Apple's open-source libraries. You can find them on http://www.opensource.apple.com .
Almost all proprietary software relies on one or more piece of open-source software. Stop being ignorant.
BTW, I am an open-source software developer both in my day job and free time.
This hat happen when you think you are the man. If Google wanted to have no problems in having a so-called free codec for video then they should have created their own sh** from scratch and gave it out for free. But they didn't.
And I feel sorry for all them clowns pimping Android. They say its free but Android is in millions of mobile devices and I swear to god the patent trolls will come biting down on their heads in he coming years. they are just lying in wait for a financial wind fall.]Tell me, has Google ever said the stuff in Android is 100% free? No they haven't. Mark my words. It is gong to get nasty!!!!
Good. I like that this is going early. This way, we'll find out how much legal bashing WebM can really take. If it holds up than we'll have an open standard that everybody can use. If not, I'll guess we'll have to take MPEG LA's proprietary stuff.
Good. I like that this is going early. This way, we'll find out how much legal bashing WebM can really take. If it holds up than we'll have an open standard that everybody can use. If not, I'll guess we'll have to take MPEG LA's proprietary stuff.
Everyone, including Google, knows it will be the latter.
Everyone, including Google, knows it will be the latter.
i love how so many think mpeg-la is the high ground and google the low considering the ceo of mpeg-la is also suing Apple. Yes, keep applauding these scumbags.
i love how so many think mpeg-la is the high ground and google the low considering the ceo of mpeg-la is also suing Apple. Yes, keep applauding these scumbags.
[QUOTE=bullhead;1806344]I know this is well beyond the comprehension of the drones on this board, but imagine if mathematic formulas were patentable./QUOTE]
In some cases, they are. Consider the LZW compression algorithm, the basis of the GIF compression. It was patented, which meant that CompuServe, which developed the GIF, had to pay the patent owners (then Unisys). A similar situation occurred with the RSA encryption algorithm.
One cannot patent DISCOVERIES, but apparently may patent formulas and algorithms which are developed for particular applications.
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.
You'd get no argument from me about that. However, like almost anything else, there has be a careful balance struck. I think it's fine that a legitimate inventor of something ought to be able to patent it if they so choose. (However, I'm not hugely supportive of software patents.) I don't have much use for patent trolls, or firms that buy up patents by the dozen from their rightful owners, only to weaponize them as a means of making money through licensing "deals".
It seems that MPEG LA is doing more of the latter than the former, checking to see if their member organizations have any patents that look to be usable against WebM and Google. The timing seems very convenient, as On2 codecs have existed for years and (so far as I know after some cursory research) have not attracted much, if any, legal attention. Only when Google buys On2 and puts their codec out with terms that allow anyone to use it freely does the MPEG LA become interested in possible legal action. Of course, it is impossible to know for sure if they had been considering action for some time before this, but it seems unlikely.
WebM is not the only example of a "free" video codec. The BBC has developed one of their own, known as Schrödinger or Dirac. There is also Theora compression.
You'd get no argument from me about that. However, like almost anything else, there has be a careful balance struck. I think it's fine that a legitimate inventor of something ought to be able to patent it if they so choose. (However, I'm not hugely supportive of software patents.) I don't have much use for patent trolls, or firms that buy up patents by the dozen from their rightful owners, only to weaponize them as a means of making money through licensing "deals".
It seems that MPEG LA is doing more of the latter than the former, ...
What they're doing has nothing to do with making money though licensing deals in this instance. It has everything to do with preventing Google from sowing chaos in the video industry.
The overwhelming majority of web sites are accessed via proprietary software. The fact that the proprietary software has some open source code inside is a red herring. People buy and use proprietary software vastly more than they 'buy' and use open source software.
To the contrary, the fact that a piece of proprietary software contains another piece of software which is open source, is ABSOLUTELY relevant.
When you distill it all down, the fact of the matter is, in choosing to purchase and use a piece of proprietary software, in most cases you are actually choosing to purchase ad use a collection of many pieces of interrelated software, some of which may be proprietary, and some of which is open source.
But the simple fact that a piece of open source software is being wrapped up inside a piece of proprietary software doesn't negate the demonstrable FACT that the open source software is still present within the proprietary software. So it is a FACT that every time somebody uses a proprietary piece of software that contains open source libraries, they are also using open source software in a different package.
Hence, everybody using the most popular rendering engine in the mobile space -- WebKit -- in any of its various packages, is making use of open source software. They may also be making use of proprietary software at the same time, in the form of the various extra amenities that must be added to turn an HTML engine into a fully functional browser. This isn't a bad thing, and I am not trying to argue otherwise. Many open source projects deliberately license their code in such a way to encourage proprietary tools to be developed based upon them.
All I'm saying, is that your original statement -- that proprietary software outnumbers open source software -- is based on a false premise. You cited Windows, Mac OS X, and Safari as examples of proprietary software to the exclusion of open source software, when in fact, all of those examples can also equally illustrate situations in which people are using Open Source software.
Mac OS X: if you are booting the kernel, then you're using open source software -- enclosed within a proprietary wrapper, but the inescapable fact remains that there is open source software being used.
Microsoft Windows: The TCP/IP stack is derived from the BSD sockets implementation. Open source software, again, enclosed within a proprietary wrapper.
Safari: The simple fact that it is being run on either Mac OS X or Microsoft Windows means that there is a layer of open source software involved in getting Safari up and running in the first place. But if you want another example, then you can't get any more obvious than WebKit.
I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with proprietary software. Nor am I saying that there's anything wrong with taking appropriately licensed open source software, and encapsulating it inside a proprietary wrapper. (Personally, I think that's perfectly OK. But still I love the irony of all proprietary developers who were too lazy to write their own library, so they took a shortcut by adopting a "crybaby-I-want-something-for-nothing" mentality and using the open source alternative...)
I just took issue with your attempt to state, as a FACT, that open source software is hardly ever used, and then citing a bunch of programs that contain open source software as your so-called "evidence".
Everyone, including Google, knows it will be the latter.
I would REALLY love the irony, if an examination of Google's patents related to VP8, reveals that IT holds some essential patents for H.264, which had not been recognized previously. Certainly, that isn't outside the realm of possibility.
I mean, if an undisclosed 3rd party might hold patents that are essential to VP8 but which haven't been recognized as such so far, then it stands to reason that the reverse might also be true about unrecognized patents still flying under the radar for H.264.
If that happened, and Google decided they didn't want to play ball with the MPEG LA, then Google could theoretically paralyze pretty much EVERYTHING having to do with the state-of-the-art of consumer digital media. Wouldn't that be a pretty picture. They might be able to use that as a negotiating tool to force everybody else's hand with respect to issuing royalty-free licenses for using their patents with the VP8 codec.
Remember, it wouldn't necessarily have to be an all-or-noting patent license. The 3rd parties could make their VP8 patent grant conditional on use exclusively with the VP8 codec, and they could still get their normal license fees if the patent was used in relation to any other codecs.
I would REALLY love the irony, if an examination of Google's patents related to VP8, reveals that IT holds some essential patents for H.264, which had not been recognized previously. Certainly, that isn't outside the realm of possibility.
I mean, if an undisclosed 3rd party might hold patents that are essential to VP8 but which haven't been recognized as such so far, then it stands to reason that the reverse might also be true about unrecognized patents still flying under the radar for H.264.
If that happened, and Google decided they didn't want to play ball with the MPEG LA, then Google could theoretically paralyze pretty much EVERYTHING having to do with the state-of-the-art of consumer digital media. Wouldn't that be a pretty picture. They might be able to use that as a negotiating tool to force everybody else's hand with respect to issuing royalty-free licenses for using their patents with the VP8 codec.
Remember, it wouldn't necessarily have to be an all-or-noting patent license. The 3rd parties could make their VP8 patent grant conditional on use exclusively with the VP8 codec, and they could still get their normal license fees if the patent was used in relation to any other codecs.
A pleasant fantasy, perhaps, but it doesn't really work to Google's advantage, just breeds a lot of ill-will toward them and preserves the status quo for as long as the dispute lasts.
Comments
Let's attack rather than compete. What a great move...
When somebody steals your product and rebrands it as their own, that's not really "competition."
It's by definition patent trolling. Even your justification for it is EXACTLY what patent trolls do. Patent trolls buy up patents and make a business out of their "right to enforce their patents and find infringers".
A patent troll is a name for a patent holder that has no intent to use their patent, and just tries to extort money out of those who it thinks are.
MPEG LA represents Sony, Philips, Apple, Microsoft and a long list of other companies that actually make products. So to refer to it as a "patent troll" just because you like Google is misinformed, ignorant, contradictory, and hysterically prejudiced against reality.
The fact is that certain "open source" advocates promote code theft and deny the existence of intellectual property, yet turn around and insist that their code is protected by the GPL and can't be appropriated against their intentions by others. Grossly hypocritical.
Might as well be rich landlord communists. Your position fundamentally makes no sense.
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.
Right, because google is too "not evil" to patent anything. Your blind advocacy has made you a laughingstock.
You're not missing anything.
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.
Ugh, you sir are an ID10T. Just because the front-end of your browser is not open-source does not make it open-source underpinnings irrelevant. Let me give you an example (safari): WebKit, sqlite, xar, and gcc. Safari is also linked against a number of Apple's open-source libraries. You can find them on http://www.opensource.apple.com .
Almost all proprietary software relies on one or more piece of open-source software. Stop being ignorant.
BTW, I am an open-source software developer both in my day job and free time.
And I feel sorry for all them clowns pimping Android. They say its free but Android is in millions of mobile devices and I swear to god the patent trolls will come biting down on their heads in he coming years. they are just lying in wait for a financial wind fall.]Tell me, has Google ever said the stuff in Android is 100% free? No they haven't. Mark my words. It is gong to get nasty!!!!
Good. I like that this is going early. This way, we'll find out how much legal bashing WebM can really take. If it holds up than we'll have an open standard that everybody can use. If not, I'll guess we'll have to take MPEG LA's proprietary stuff.
Everyone, including Google, knows it will be the latter.
Everyone, including Google, knows it will be the latter.
i love how so many think mpeg-la is the high ground and google the low considering the ceo of mpeg-la is also suing Apple. Yes, keep applauding these scumbags.
http://thepriorart.typepad.com/the_p...s-v-apple.html
i love how so many think mpeg-la is the high ground and google the low considering the ceo of mpeg-la is also suing Apple. Yes, keep applauding these scumbags.
http://thepriorart.typepad.com/the_p...s-v-apple.html
I fail to see the relevancy to the topic at hand.
In some cases, they are. Consider the LZW compression algorithm, the basis of the GIF compression. It was patented, which meant that CompuServe, which developed the GIF, had to pay the patent owners (then Unisys). A similar situation occurred with the RSA encryption algorithm.
One cannot patent DISCOVERIES, but apparently may patent formulas and algorithms which are developed for particular applications.
I fail to see the relevancy to the topic at hand.
not my problem if you cannot.
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.
You'd get no argument from me about that. However, like almost anything else, there has be a careful balance struck. I think it's fine that a legitimate inventor of something ought to be able to patent it if they so choose. (However, I'm not hugely supportive of software patents.) I don't have much use for patent trolls, or firms that buy up patents by the dozen from their rightful owners, only to weaponize them as a means of making money through licensing "deals".
It seems that MPEG LA is doing more of the latter than the former, checking to see if their member organizations have any patents that look to be usable against WebM and Google. The timing seems very convenient, as On2 codecs have existed for years and (so far as I know after some cursory research) have not attracted much, if any, legal attention. Only when Google buys On2 and puts their codec out with terms that allow anyone to use it freely does the MPEG LA become interested in possible legal action. Of course, it is impossible to know for sure if they had been considering action for some time before this, but it seems unlikely.
WebM is not the only example of a "free" video codec. The BBC has developed one of their own, known as Schrödinger or Dirac. There is also Theora compression.
not my problem if you cannot.
Well, actually, it is.
You'd get no argument from me about that. However, like almost anything else, there has be a careful balance struck. I think it's fine that a legitimate inventor of something ought to be able to patent it if they so choose. (However, I'm not hugely supportive of software patents.) I don't have much use for patent trolls, or firms that buy up patents by the dozen from their rightful owners, only to weaponize them as a means of making money through licensing "deals".
It seems that MPEG LA is doing more of the latter than the former, ...
What they're doing has nothing to do with making money though licensing deals in this instance. It has everything to do with preventing Google from sowing chaos in the video industry.
Well, actually, it is.
not really. crumbs thrown out to feed the birds in the park. don't really care which ones actually eat them. it just something to do at the park.
not really. crumbs thrown out to feed the birds in the park. don't really care which ones actually eat them. it just something to do at the park.
And crumbs at the park are irrelevant to an AI discussion. So your posts are still irrelevant and it is your problem, even if you don't wish it to be.
I see that logic isn't your strong point.
The overwhelming majority of web sites are accessed via proprietary software. The fact that the proprietary software has some open source code inside is a red herring. People buy and use proprietary software vastly more than they 'buy' and use open source software.
To the contrary, the fact that a piece of proprietary software contains another piece of software which is open source, is ABSOLUTELY relevant.
When you distill it all down, the fact of the matter is, in choosing to purchase and use a piece of proprietary software, in most cases you are actually choosing to purchase ad use a collection of many pieces of interrelated software, some of which may be proprietary, and some of which is open source.
But the simple fact that a piece of open source software is being wrapped up inside a piece of proprietary software doesn't negate the demonstrable FACT that the open source software is still present within the proprietary software. So it is a FACT that every time somebody uses a proprietary piece of software that contains open source libraries, they are also using open source software in a different package.
Hence, everybody using the most popular rendering engine in the mobile space -- WebKit -- in any of its various packages, is making use of open source software. They may also be making use of proprietary software at the same time, in the form of the various extra amenities that must be added to turn an HTML engine into a fully functional browser. This isn't a bad thing, and I am not trying to argue otherwise. Many open source projects deliberately license their code in such a way to encourage proprietary tools to be developed based upon them.
All I'm saying, is that your original statement -- that proprietary software outnumbers open source software -- is based on a false premise. You cited Windows, Mac OS X, and Safari as examples of proprietary software to the exclusion of open source software, when in fact, all of those examples can also equally illustrate situations in which people are using Open Source software.
Mac OS X: if you are booting the kernel, then you're using open source software -- enclosed within a proprietary wrapper, but the inescapable fact remains that there is open source software being used.
Microsoft Windows: The TCP/IP stack is derived from the BSD sockets implementation. Open source software, again, enclosed within a proprietary wrapper.
Safari: The simple fact that it is being run on either Mac OS X or Microsoft Windows means that there is a layer of open source software involved in getting Safari up and running in the first place. But if you want another example, then you can't get any more obvious than WebKit.
I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with proprietary software. Nor am I saying that there's anything wrong with taking appropriately licensed open source software, and encapsulating it inside a proprietary wrapper. (Personally, I think that's perfectly OK. But still I love the irony of all proprietary developers who were too lazy to write their own library, so they took a shortcut by adopting a "crybaby-I-want-something-for-nothing" mentality and using the open source alternative...)
I just took issue with your attempt to state, as a FACT, that open source software is hardly ever used, and then citing a bunch of programs that contain open source software as your so-called "evidence".
Everyone, including Google, knows it will be the latter.
I would REALLY love the irony, if an examination of Google's patents related to VP8, reveals that IT holds some essential patents for H.264, which had not been recognized previously. Certainly, that isn't outside the realm of possibility.
I mean, if an undisclosed 3rd party might hold patents that are essential to VP8 but which haven't been recognized as such so far, then it stands to reason that the reverse might also be true about unrecognized patents still flying under the radar for H.264.
If that happened, and Google decided they didn't want to play ball with the MPEG LA, then Google could theoretically paralyze pretty much EVERYTHING having to do with the state-of-the-art of consumer digital media. Wouldn't that be a pretty picture. They might be able to use that as a negotiating tool to force everybody else's hand with respect to issuing royalty-free licenses for using their patents with the VP8 codec.
Remember, it wouldn't necessarily have to be an all-or-noting patent license. The 3rd parties could make their VP8 patent grant conditional on use exclusively with the VP8 codec, and they could still get their normal license fees if the patent was used in relation to any other codecs.
I would REALLY love the irony, if an examination of Google's patents related to VP8, reveals that IT holds some essential patents for H.264, which had not been recognized previously. Certainly, that isn't outside the realm of possibility.
I mean, if an undisclosed 3rd party might hold patents that are essential to VP8 but which haven't been recognized as such so far, then it stands to reason that the reverse might also be true about unrecognized patents still flying under the radar for H.264.
If that happened, and Google decided they didn't want to play ball with the MPEG LA, then Google could theoretically paralyze pretty much EVERYTHING having to do with the state-of-the-art of consumer digital media. Wouldn't that be a pretty picture. They might be able to use that as a negotiating tool to force everybody else's hand with respect to issuing royalty-free licenses for using their patents with the VP8 codec.
Remember, it wouldn't necessarily have to be an all-or-noting patent license. The 3rd parties could make their VP8 patent grant conditional on use exclusively with the VP8 codec, and they could still get their normal license fees if the patent was used in relation to any other codecs.
A pleasant fantasy, perhaps, but it doesn't really work to Google's advantage, just breeds a lot of ill-will toward them and preserves the status quo for as long as the dispute lasts.