undefined | Better HN

0 pointsgillianseed13y ago0 comments

Google releases VP8 and VP9 with a patent and royalty free licence, so a potential patent threat will hardly come from them.

0 comments

protomyth13y ago

Motorola released their GSM required patents under FRAND licensing. Google buys Motorola and tries to use those same patents in a fight with Apple and Motorola (dragging Qualcomm in with them). Google has to agree with the FTC not to do that.

Why would Apple or Microsoft believe Google's patent and royalty free license given their behavior with Motorola's prior promises?

shmerl13y ago

Apple and MS just don't like open codecs, period. That's the whole reason they sabotage them. It's not about belief - it's about the struggle between closed and open.

protomyth13y ago

Apple and MS don't like legal uncertainty and additional risks in choosing technologies. Open never entered into it. People also forget some of the problem both companies had with MPEG-LA.

1 more reply

taligent13y ago

Exactly the patent threat will come from the MPEG-LA or the members directly.

Because if VP9 is indeed similar to H.265 then you I would imagine a patent is being infringed somewhere. And since Google doesn't provide patent indemnification you can guarantee that some big royalties will be demanded from users.

shmerl13y ago

> Exactly the patent threat will come from the MPEG-LA or the members directly. Because if VP9 is indeed similar to H.265

Why would they design the codec to be vulnerable to patent attacks? VP8 was designed to work around threats from H.264. They surely applied the same logic for VP9 since they intend it for practical use and not as theoretical brain exercise. MPEG-LA spits threats all the time, including against Theora and VP8, but they have no teeth to bite.

gillianseedOP13y ago

I bet you said the same thing back when VP8 was released, no such patent lawsuit has occured.

Also, On2 which Google purchased holds lots of video compression patents, patents which codec's like h.264 and h.265 just as likely violates.

MPEG-LA does not offer any patent indemnification either.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

protomyth13y ago

Why would Apple or Microsoft believe Google's patent and royalty free license given their behavior with Motorola's prior promises?

shmerl13y ago

Apple and MS just don't like open codecs, period. That's the whole reason they sabotage them. It's not about belief - it's about the struggle between closed and open.

protomyth13y ago

Apple and MS don't like legal uncertainty and additional risks in choosing technologies. Open never entered into it. People also forget some of the problem both companies had with MPEG-LA.

1 more reply

taligent13y ago

Exactly the patent threat will come from the MPEG-LA or the members directly.

shmerl13y ago

> Exactly the patent threat will come from the MPEG-LA or the members directly. Because if VP9 is indeed similar to H.265

gillianseedOP13y ago

I bet you said the same thing back when VP8 was released, no such patent lawsuit has occured.

Also, On2 which Google purchased holds lots of video compression patents, patents which codec's like h.264 and h.265 just as likely violates.

MPEG-LA does not offer any patent indemnification either.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse