"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?)
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"...
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?
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.
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"?
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."
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.
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.
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:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfts
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.
"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?)
i Really like your idea about the free product means free patent use ...except Google's android operating system is "free"...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecs
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?
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
But the mods love him.
Hey now. Who ever claimed that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stike vomit
Classic Dan Diggler piece...
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight
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"?
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/resume.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfts
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."
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/resume.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by stike vomit
Brevity is the soul of wit.
And wit is the opiate of the online masses.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsun Zu
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimrommex
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
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.
Wrong. Skype uses it for video calls. Support was first added in 2010.
Googles lack of integrity and honesty even puts microsoft to shame.
"Do No Evil" Ya Sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanic
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.