Imagine if Google accused Bing of copying their search results derived using mathematical formulae known as algorithms...
...oh, hang on they did, then whined about it all over the Internet. ...
And what a bunch of bullshit from Google that turned out to be. They basically figured out how to feed fake click data into Bing, then used that to make bogus search results show up. The whole thing is so pathetic and stupid that I wouldn't be surprised if some Google engineers were spending their "free time" engaged in industrial sabotage research and then someone realized that it was going to blow in Google's face so they invented this, "Bing is copying our search results!" thing to cover the whole thing up.
But, yeah, pretty ironic whining coming from a company that runs on violating the IP of others.
What planet are you from? If software patents were not allowed why would anyone spend time and money developing software if anyone could then just basically copy, steal and call it their own? If a company or person can't make a profit writing software then obviously they won't even bother to try.
The real one, where through the 80's and 90's there were no software patents and there were huge advances in computer technology. Now companies big and small are getting into more and more trouble with patents most (but not all) are dubious at best. The lawyers are getting rich.
case in point of how there should be no such thing as software patents. They do nothing but stifle innovation and destroy competition.
In your dream world we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The technologies to communicate would not have been invented due to lack of incentive to do so.
I am an inventor, and I know just how damn hard it is create that which has never been created before. And it's so easy to copy, and so deplorable too. Hard work deserves protection and reward.
When MPEG-LA decides they want to increase revenues in a few years by increasing fees for H.264, I'm sure you'll see them begin suing all sorts of people.
The organization is basically designed to aggressively sue anyone who comes close to infringing their "intellectual property". Humorous that anyone remotely coming close to accusing Apple of intellectual property theft gets eviscerated as just being a greedy lawyer, but when the same happens to Google, everyone sides with the lawyers and patent trolls.
I bet if Terry Jones declared international "cancel your gmail account day", he would be given a job as a writer on AI...
You wonder why people on these boards would have a different attitude between claims against Google and claims against Apple? Because they are usually qualitatively different in nature. Sure, there will be some people that come out and accuse Apple of this or that, but Apple definitely works hard, develops most of its own technologies and can show a long and consistent process of development over the years. It has a track record of a pretty good work ethic.
Take one of the recent suits: Apple gets sued, a long with a bunch of others, for the way music is listed hierarchically in it's music library in iTunes. But everyone believes this is a junk patent because it is simply logical and self-evident that anyone would organise a song by Artist, Album and song name. What else can you do?
In contrast, the technological way that the iPod scrolls the list seamlessly and effortlessly according to the swipe applied with your finger and showing inertia that slows it down like a physical thing... That is completely Apple's own doing and rightly should be defended against copiers.
Apple can usually show that it came up with many things over the years and implemented things from scratch in it's own way. Google on the other hand, as you can see in this piece, just disrespects IP as a philosophy. They expect to do what they like and get away with it. If they want to incorporate portions of Sun's IP improperly, then they will just go ahead and do it. They are on record as having a whole philosophy of disrespect. They seem to think, that just because they are distributing something for "nothing", that they have a right to use whatever they need for nothing.
In fact, Google are profiting from the users' eyeballs and private data; which rubs a against their "do no evil" mantra. This definitely contributes to the differing attitudes about patent claims against these two companies. So, please don't act like Apple supporters don't have a clue and hypocritically support their favourite company no matter what. There are obvious subtleties at play here, the claims and suits are different (and where the claims against both companies are the same, their respective culpability differs); not to mention the philosophies and characteristics displayed by the leadership differ at each company.
The real one, where through the 80's and 90's there were no software patents and there were huge advances in computer technology. Now companies big and small are getting into more and more trouble with patents most (but not all) are dubious at best. The lawyers are getting rich.
Oh yeah, the 80's and 90's, where an MS could flatten Netscape and anything else in it's path, in order to leave us with a crap browser for ten years, which some computer users still use. If MS had its way, you wouldn't be worried about MPEG LA, because we would all be using Windows media and making non-standards compliant, proprietary websites using inferior MS technology and its own perversion of java.
Seems like we are rolling right back around to the same thing, if Google continues unchecked. Some progress, eh? No, let's not let the device makers and software publishers worry about paying a pool of patent holders for some of the great and innovative tech they deliver to us as users, and which is being actively improved upon all the time (real advances, made economically viable and open because they are made in collaboration with others); no, let's get into bed with one company that has evident big brother aspirations but a poor record of completing projects and implementing the advances you speak of in any practical way... (this applies almost equally to Adobe, Google and MS : companies that do not promote real open standards no matter how much they protest their openness).
I know this is well beyond the comprehension of the drones on this board, but imagine if mathematic formulas were patentable. We would still be living in caves. Ever hear of trademarks and copyrights? And not everyones motive are based purely on greed.
educate yourself before you speak. I know that is asking a lot in the age of Faux News.
Oh yeah, the 80's and 90's, where an MS could flatten Netscape and anything else in it's path, in order to leave us with a crap browser for ten years, which some computer users still use. If MS had its way, you wouldn't be worried about MPEG LA, because we would all be using Windows media and making non-standards compliant, proprietary websites using inferior MS technology and its own perversion of java.
Seems like we are rolling right back around to the same thing, if Google continues unchecked. Some progress, eh? No, let's not let the device makers and software publishers worry about paying a pool of patent holders for some of the great and innovative tech they deliver to us as users, and which is being actively improved upon all the time (real advances, made economically viable and open because they are made in collaboration with others); no, let's get into bed with one company that has evident big brother aspirations but a poor record of completing projects and implementing the advances you speak of in any practical way... (this applies almost equally to Adobe, Google and MS : companies that do not promote real open standards no matter how much they protest their openness).
...that's because Mueller is a bit of a troll/shill himself. Take a peek at his postings on Slashdot sometime... he's all about instantly giving up and siding with Microsoft, et al.
I was waiting for this for a while. We'll see how it plays out but I hope MPEG wins. Dropping h.264 from Chrome to focus on WebM, which is crappier and generally not hardware accelerated was a bad turn. Hopefully this makes google realize that.
Google believes the world needs another video codec *cough* standard *cough*. Wasn't this problem already solved by H.264?
Their reasons are because they think a codec should be patent-free? Patents are a fact of life in the tech business, you'd think Google would have figured that out by now. Is it pride, hubris, or just some FOSS idealism? If they supported H.264 next to WebM, WebM would never see adoption. They have to throw their weight and influence to make WebM work. If they win, it's a sign that Google has too much power. Not even Microsoft could push their proprietary VC1 to defeat H.264: they too had to support H.264.
Imagine if Google accused Bing of copying their search results derived using mathematical formulae known as algorithms...
...oh, hang on they did, then whined about it all over the Internet.
Bunch of hypocrites, Google want to run roughshod over everyone else's IP, taking and adapting whatever they want but the first sign of it happening to them and they chuck a tantrum.
They didn't copy the algorithm, just the results. And their algorithms are not covered by patents but by simply being secret. Nothing can stop Microsoft from trying to engineer their own algorithm to compete with Google.
OTOH, copying their search results wholesale is more akin to stealing source code, which appears that Google may have done with android.
And what a bunch of bullshit from Google that turned out to be. They basically figured out how to feed fake click data into Bing, then used that to make bogus search results show up. The whole thing is so pathetic and stupid that I wouldn't be surprised if some Google engineers were spending their "free time" engaged in industrial sabotage research and then someone realized that it was going to blow in Google's face so they invented this, "Bing is copying our search results!" thing to cover the whole thing up.
But, yeah, pretty ironic whining coming from a company that runs on violating the IP of others.
Where did you read that at? Seems like a bunch of bs yourself.
Google believes the world needs another video codec *cough* standard *cough*. Wasn't this problem already solved by H.264?
Their reasons are because they think a codec should be patent-free? Patents are a fact of life in the tech business, you'd think Google would have figured that out by now. Is it pride, hubris, or just some FOSS idealism? If they supported H.264 next to WebM, WebM would never see adoption. They have to throw their weight and influence to make WebM work. If they win, it's a sign that Google has too much power. Not even Microsoft could push their proprietary VC1 to defeat H.264: they too had to support H.264.
VP8 aka WebM is NOT patent free; it's patented like anything else and those patents were purchased by Google and they licensed it into the open.
Sorry, but this is just more BS from MPEG-LA. They are nothing but a patent troll organization. They didn't care about VP6 when it was used all over the web, nor would they ever work with Ziph to make sure VP3 wasn't patent encumbered, and now only care about VP8 now that Google made it into the open domain.
You want MPEG-LA to win? This same organization is suing for royalties from apple and others over BS patents regarding phones they got. Sorry, the MPEG part of the name used to mean something, now all they do is make "patent pools" for anything they come across.
Quote:
"At MPEG-LA, we've always gone after anybody in need of a license, to offer them one," Horn adds. "You get no favoritism just because you happen to be a licensor in one program. If somebody gives us the right to license their IP in one context, they have to expect we're going to license someone else's IP in another context. Our credibility is based on that."
Imagine if Google accused Bing of copying their search results derived using mathematical formulae known as algorithms...
...oh, hang on they did, then whined about it all over the Internet.
Actually, Bing was wasn't using google algorithms, they were actually copying Google results - Google planted random words and links into the search engine which had nothing to do with the algorithm, and caught Bing basically using Google to create search results. Big difference.
When MPEG-LA decides they want to increase revenues in a few years by increasing fees for H.264, I'm sure you'll see them begin suing all sorts of people.
MPEGLA may never charge anyone but the largest of groups any fees, just as it is today. But they will still defend the patents because it means giving credit to the folks that really did the original work. And that alone can be valuable. If you were trying to get a job based on your work wouldn't you want to be acknowledged as the guy who thought of X first, especially X was a key factor in the decision. Or would you be happy with me claiming I thought of it first.
As for those saying we don't need another codec, actually we do. Trouble with Google's move is that they are trying to match the status quo and THAT is not what we need. We need a codec that would allow for blu-ray quality video without huge file size overheard. A digital BR that was 3-4 GB might be tolerable but right now it would be more like 30 gb and few to no one has the bandwidth etc for that. If Google could make that codec happen they would cream everyone in a heartbeat.
why would mpeg la need to put out a call for patent holders? i thought they had already indicated that webm infringed?
'hey anyone out there want to sue google? we could use your support cuz we don't really have a case on our own and the FUD ain't working as well as we thought it would'
hopefully google will pull a Henry Ford and not pay a dime and take it to court as long as it takes...
The Mozilla Foundation is the only company that has a product that ships in the millions and that doesn't licence h.264 and yet use WebM. I have the feeling most of those patent lawsuits will hit them. Other companies allready have licenced most of those WebM decoding patents for the use in their h.264 decoder so they might be just fine.
Comments
Imagine if Google accused Bing of copying their search results derived using mathematical formulae known as algorithms...
...oh, hang on they did, then whined about it all over the Internet. ...
And what a bunch of bullshit from Google that turned out to be. They basically figured out how to feed fake click data into Bing, then used that to make bogus search results show up. The whole thing is so pathetic and stupid that I wouldn't be surprised if some Google engineers were spending their "free time" engaged in industrial sabotage research and then someone realized that it was going to blow in Google's face so they invented this, "Bing is copying our search results!" thing to cover the whole thing up.
But, yeah, pretty ironic whining coming from a company that runs on violating the IP of others.
What planet are you from? If software patents were not allowed why would anyone spend time and money developing software if anyone could then just basically copy, steal and call it their own? If a company or person can't make a profit writing software then obviously they won't even bother to try.
The real one, where through the 80's and 90's there were no software patents and there were huge advances in computer technology. Now companies big and small are getting into more and more trouble with patents most (but not all) are dubious at best. The lawyers are getting rich.
case in point of how there should be no such thing as software patents. They do nothing but stifle innovation and destroy competition.
In your dream world we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The technologies to communicate would not have been invented due to lack of incentive to do so.
I am an inventor, and I know just how damn hard it is create that which has never been created before. And it's so easy to copy, and so deplorable too. Hard work deserves protection and reward.
When MPEG-LA decides they want to increase revenues in a few years by increasing fees for H.264, I'm sure you'll see them begin suing all sorts of people.
The organization is basically designed to aggressively sue anyone who comes close to infringing their "intellectual property". Humorous that anyone remotely coming close to accusing Apple of intellectual property theft gets eviscerated as just being a greedy lawyer, but when the same happens to Google, everyone sides with the lawyers and patent trolls.
I bet if Terry Jones declared international "cancel your gmail account day", he would be given a job as a writer on AI...
You wonder why people on these boards would have a different attitude between claims against Google and claims against Apple? Because they are usually qualitatively different in nature. Sure, there will be some people that come out and accuse Apple of this or that, but Apple definitely works hard, develops most of its own technologies and can show a long and consistent process of development over the years. It has a track record of a pretty good work ethic.
Take one of the recent suits: Apple gets sued, a long with a bunch of others, for the way music is listed hierarchically in it's music library in iTunes. But everyone believes this is a junk patent because it is simply logical and self-evident that anyone would organise a song by Artist, Album and song name. What else can you do?
In contrast, the technological way that the iPod scrolls the list seamlessly and effortlessly according to the swipe applied with your finger and showing inertia that slows it down like a physical thing... That is completely Apple's own doing and rightly should be defended against copiers.
Apple can usually show that it came up with many things over the years and implemented things from scratch in it's own way. Google on the other hand, as you can see in this piece, just disrespects IP as a philosophy. They expect to do what they like and get away with it. If they want to incorporate portions of Sun's IP improperly, then they will just go ahead and do it. They are on record as having a whole philosophy of disrespect. They seem to think, that just because they are distributing something for "nothing", that they have a right to use whatever they need for nothing.
In fact, Google are profiting from the users' eyeballs and private data; which rubs a against their "do no evil" mantra. This definitely contributes to the differing attitudes about patent claims against these two companies. So, please don't act like Apple supporters don't have a clue and hypocritically support their favourite company no matter what. There are obvious subtleties at play here, the claims and suits are different (and where the claims against both companies are the same, their respective culpability differs); not to mention the philosophies and characteristics displayed by the leadership differ at each company.
Absurd as it seems Google's entire business model is built on the basis of giving away that which belongs to others.
The real one, where through the 80's and 90's there were no software patents and there were huge advances in computer technology. Now companies big and small are getting into more and more trouble with patents most (but not all) are dubious at best. The lawyers are getting rich.
Oh yeah, the 80's and 90's, where an MS could flatten Netscape and anything else in it's path, in order to leave us with a crap browser for ten years, which some computer users still use. If MS had its way, you wouldn't be worried about MPEG LA, because we would all be using Windows media and making non-standards compliant, proprietary websites using inferior MS technology and its own perversion of java.
Seems like we are rolling right back around to the same thing, if Google continues unchecked. Some progress, eh? No, let's not let the device makers and software publishers worry about paying a pool of patent holders for some of the great and innovative tech they deliver to us as users, and which is being actively improved upon all the time (real advances, made economically viable and open because they are made in collaboration with others); no, let's get into bed with one company that has evident big brother aspirations but a poor record of completing projects and implementing the advances you speak of in any practical way... (this applies almost equally to Adobe, Google and MS : companies that do not promote real open standards no matter how much they protest their openness).
I know this is well beyond the comprehension of the drones on this board, but imagine if mathematic formulas were patentable. We would still be living in caves. Ever hear of trademarks and copyrights? And not everyones motive are based purely on greed.
educate yourself before you speak. I know that is asking a lot in the age of Faux News.
http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/07/why...tware-patents/
http://www.jerf.org/writings/communi...ics/node6.html
How about you educate yourself on BING!
Oh yeah, the 80's and 90's, where an MS could flatten Netscape and anything else in it's path, in order to leave us with a crap browser for ten years, which some computer users still use. If MS had its way, you wouldn't be worried about MPEG LA, because we would all be using Windows media and making non-standards compliant, proprietary websites using inferior MS technology and its own perversion of java.
Seems like we are rolling right back around to the same thing, if Google continues unchecked. Some progress, eh? No, let's not let the device makers and software publishers worry about paying a pool of patent holders for some of the great and innovative tech they deliver to us as users, and which is being actively improved upon all the time (real advances, made economically viable and open because they are made in collaboration with others); no, let's get into bed with one company that has evident big brother aspirations but a poor record of completing projects and implementing the advances you speak of in any practical way... (this applies almost equally to Adobe, Google and MS : companies that do not promote real open standards no matter how much they protest their openness).
Well said!
This quote jumps out at you:
...that's because Mueller is a bit of a troll/shill himself. Take a peek at his postings on Slashdot sometime... he's all about instantly giving up and siding with Microsoft, et al.
Their reasons are because they think a codec should be patent-free? Patents are a fact of life in the tech business, you'd think Google would have figured that out by now. Is it pride, hubris, or just some FOSS idealism? If they supported H.264 next to WebM, WebM would never see adoption. They have to throw their weight and influence to make WebM work. If they win, it's a sign that Google has too much power. Not even Microsoft could push their proprietary VC1 to defeat H.264: they too had to support H.264.
Imagine if Google accused Bing of copying their search results derived using mathematical formulae known as algorithms...
...oh, hang on they did, then whined about it all over the Internet.
Bunch of hypocrites, Google want to run roughshod over everyone else's IP, taking and adapting whatever they want but the first sign of it happening to them and they chuck a tantrum.
They didn't copy the algorithm, just the results. And their algorithms are not covered by patents but by simply being secret. Nothing can stop Microsoft from trying to engineer their own algorithm to compete with Google.
OTOH, copying their search results wholesale is more akin to stealing source code, which appears that Google may have done with android.
And what a bunch of bullshit from Google that turned out to be. They basically figured out how to feed fake click data into Bing, then used that to make bogus search results show up. The whole thing is so pathetic and stupid that I wouldn't be surprised if some Google engineers were spending their "free time" engaged in industrial sabotage research and then someone realized that it was going to blow in Google's face so they invented this, "Bing is copying our search results!" thing to cover the whole thing up.
But, yeah, pretty ironic whining coming from a company that runs on violating the IP of others.
Where did you read that at? Seems like a bunch of bs yourself.
Google believes the world needs another video codec *cough* standard *cough*. Wasn't this problem already solved by H.264?
Their reasons are because they think a codec should be patent-free? Patents are a fact of life in the tech business, you'd think Google would have figured that out by now. Is it pride, hubris, or just some FOSS idealism? If they supported H.264 next to WebM, WebM would never see adoption. They have to throw their weight and influence to make WebM work. If they win, it's a sign that Google has too much power. Not even Microsoft could push their proprietary VC1 to defeat H.264: they too had to support H.264.
VP8 aka WebM is NOT patent free; it's patented like anything else and those patents were purchased by Google and they licensed it into the open.
Sorry, but this is just more BS from MPEG-LA. They are nothing but a patent troll organization. They didn't care about VP6 when it was used all over the web, nor would they ever work with Ziph to make sure VP3 wasn't patent encumbered, and now only care about VP8 now that Google made it into the open domain.
You want MPEG-LA to win? This same organization is suing for royalties from apple and others over BS patents regarding phones they got. Sorry, the MPEG part of the name used to mean something, now all they do is make "patent pools" for anything they come across.
"At MPEG-LA, we've always gone after anybody in need of a license, to offer them one," Horn adds. "You get no favoritism just because you happen to be a licensor in one program. If somebody gives us the right to license their IP in one context, they have to expect we're going to license someone else's IP in another context. Our credibility is based on that."
Where did you read that at? Seems like a bunch of bs yourself.
Why don't you go Google (wish there was a markup for irony) it, it's all over the web and twitter.
Imagine if Google accused Bing of copying their search results derived using mathematical formulae known as algorithms...
...oh, hang on they did, then whined about it all over the Internet.
Actually, Bing was wasn't using google algorithms, they were actually copying Google results - Google planted random words and links into the search engine which had nothing to do with the algorithm, and caught Bing basically using Google to create search results. Big difference.
When MPEG-LA decides they want to increase revenues in a few years by increasing fees for H.264, I'm sure you'll see them begin suing all sorts of people.
MPEGLA may never charge anyone but the largest of groups any fees, just as it is today. But they will still defend the patents because it means giving credit to the folks that really did the original work. And that alone can be valuable. If you were trying to get a job based on your work wouldn't you want to be acknowledged as the guy who thought of X first, especially X was a key factor in the decision. Or would you be happy with me claiming I thought of it first.
As for those saying we don't need another codec, actually we do. Trouble with Google's move is that they are trying to match the status quo and THAT is not what we need. We need a codec that would allow for blu-ray quality video without huge file size overheard. A digital BR that was 3-4 GB might be tolerable but right now it would be more like 30 gb and few to no one has the bandwidth etc for that. If Google could make that codec happen they would cream everyone in a heartbeat.
'hey anyone out there want to sue google? we could use your support cuz we don't really have a case on our own and the FUD ain't working as well as we thought it would'
hopefully google will pull a Henry Ford and not pay a dime and take it to court as long as it takes...
The Mozilla Foundation is the only company that has a product that ships in the millions and that doesn't licence h.264 and yet use WebM. I have the feeling most of those patent lawsuits will hit them. Other companies allready have licenced most of those WebM decoding patents for the use in their h.264 decoder so they might be just fine.