Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Google's New VP8 Codec SDK Is Better, Faster

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by drag View Post
    So therefore all the Vp8 people really need to do is copy H.264 almost exactly, EXCEPT go through each patent and find a slightly different way to do pretty much the same thing.
    A good patent lawyer will word your application in a way so it covers as many uses as possible. For example: Gemalto is currently suing Google, HTC, Motorola etc. over a patent which essentialy describes how to "run software developed in a high-level language on a resource-constrained device". This essentialy covers any kind of virtual machine on an embedded device. How do you avoid such a thing?

    The US patent law has allowed such patents for decades.

    Originally posted by drag View Post
    Vp8 is probably vulnerable to unknown patents.

    But the trick is so are other codecs like H.264.
    The difference is: Most companies which could hold patents on H.264 are already members of the MPEGLA, and they carefully designed H.264 around the patents their members could provide. The chance of unknown patents is low.

    VP8 was never even properly analyzed, and Google just pretends there are no patent infringements. Which is simply not possible, judging from the similarities to H.264.


    Originally posted by drag View Post
    As far as MPEG-LA goes they are probably toothless. They will go after companies for licensing fees, but they will be very careful to only go after ones that will pay without a fight.

    You see MPEG-LA cannot risk going to court... no matter what.

    Could you imagine MPEG-LA trying to sue Google or other major player and end up LOSING?
    Err, sure. They even went after one of their own, Alcatel-Lucent - and won.

    The MPEGLA holds so many patents on basic video encoding technologies, a codec as similar to H.264 as WebM simply HAS to infringe at least a couple of MPEGLA patents. I certainly won't encode anything into WebM as long as Google does not provide proper patent research.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by sturmflut View Post
      The MPEGLA holds so many patents on basic video encoding technologies, a codec as similar to H.264 as WebM simply HAS to infringe at least a couple of MPEGLA patents. I certainly won't encode anything into WebM as long as Google does not provide proper patent research.
      I'm so glad that on this part of the planet, the software patent nonsense is not legal. Imagine that -- you can encode your stuff however the hell you want.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by sturmflut View Post
        No, it's called "patent research", and every company does either before they start developing something, or before they publish it.
        Just because someone has been granted a patent does not mean that it will be UPHELD IN LAW. That is were a court comes in, please just look it up.

        Originally posted by sturmflut View Post
        Google is ALWAYS acting quite naive on the patent front. That's why they're being sued by Oracle over Dalvik now. A whole patent war has started around Android.
        Because someone is being sued doesn't mean they are being naive, are Microsoft naive? Apple? They are all being sued, so what's your point? Also, while Oracle mentioned patents when they first started sueing, now it seems to be about copyright violation.

        Originally posted by sturmflut View Post
        WebM is so similar to H.264, it is simply not possible that it does not infringe a whole bunch of MPEGLA patents. The FFMPEG guys showed us those similarities months ago, and Google never responded.
        Noone knows who holds the patents on those 'similarities', since ON2 which is the company Google bought has lots of patents on video encoding and they existed before MPEGLA there's no reason to think these patents belong to MPEGLA (if these techniques are even patented at all). You of course draw those conclusions because you want to, same as the original x264 author you were referring to did), despite him claiming that he had no idea if the techniques were patented or not or by whom because he by his own accord don't give a crap about patents.

        Originally posted by sturmflut View Post
        Google could only give you that kind of license if they actually owned the patents, or settled an agreement with all parties owning patents.
        They're obviously certain that they are not violating anyone else's patents, if they are or not can AGAIN only be decided in a court of LAW.

        Originally posted by sturmflut View Post
        The MPEGLA is IMO just keeping quiet for two reasons: They need some competition to win the monopoly law suit against Nero (how could you be a monopoly if there is another good video codec offered free of charge?), and as soon as that is over and WebM has gained some ground the patent suits will start going. Just like AMD is Intels protection against a monopoly lawsuit.
        I think this is just wishful thinking on your part, future will tell.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by sturmflut View Post
          VP8 was never even properly analyzed, and Google just pretends there are no patent infringements.
          Proof? I think it's safe to assume that VP8 was properly analyzed, it's no surprise that Google wouldn't publish those results in detail though. They simply report the results they concluded.
          Which is simply not possible, judging from the similarities to H.264.
          You really don't understand how patents work. I know you think you do, but you don't.

          Err, sure. They even went after one of their own, Alcatel-Lucent - and won.
          I absolutely agree that the MPEG-LA will go after Google if they think they can. The fact that they haven't should tell you something.

          The MPEGLA holds so many patents on basic video encoding technologies, a codec as similar to H.264 as WebM simply HAS to infringe at least a couple of MPEGLA patents.
          Again, where's your proof? Point me to a patent that VP8 infringes on, or everyone is going to continue to think you're just spreading FUD. Seriously, if they hold so many patents on basic video encoding, it should be easy to point out one of them that VP8 violates. Right?

          I certainly won't encode anything into WebM as long as Google does not provide proper patent research.
          Again, you assert that Google hasn't done something that they clearly have. But obviously you have every right to use whatever codec you think is best.

          Comment


          • #20
            Some people seem to be so concerned about h264 having patents that VP8 infringes on. Is it also not possible that VP8 has patents that h264 infringes on?

            Comment


            • #21
              I hope everyone starts using patented software, all the biggest companies, so that all hell will break loose and the USPTO will be cracked down upon for getting everyone into this mess to begin with.

              Comment


              • #22
                SSE3? What about SSE2, which is supported on more CPU's...

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
                  Actually, the license was cooler than that.... it contained a single exception that overrode everything else -- if you look at it with the intention of, or use information pulled from it to attack google, then screw you, you have no right to even THINK about it and we'll sue your ass for license/copyright infringement until you're bankrupt.

                  Now the real situation regarding patents and licensing is like this;
                  Google it the one facing mpeg on this, effectively protecting everyone else. If mpeg attacks google, google is simply too big and no doubt has a bunch of patents in its portfolio that can PROBABLY be used to free up h.264. mpeg surely wouldn't attack google on this because if they did, google could probably force them to let h.264 out under GOOGLE'S licensing terms.
                  I am also sure other companies might come to Google's aid if it was sued, if they hold other relevant patents or technology that can bolster Google's claims. In any event it's positive that MPEGLA will be thinking very hard about all the ramifications of even considering suing Google.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
                    Actually, the license was cooler than that.... it contained a single exception that overrode everything else -- if you look at it with the intention of, or use information pulled from it to attack google, then screw you, you have no right to even THINK about it and we'll sue your ass for license/copyright infringement until you're bankrupt.
                    Where do you see this nonsense?

                    Here is the IP exception:

                    "This implementation" means the copyrightable works distributed by Google as part of the WebM Project.
                    Google hereby grants to you a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, transfer, and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of this implementation of VP8, where such license applies only to those patent claims, both currently owned by Google and acquired in the future, licensable by Google that are necessarily infringed by this implementation of VP8. This grant does not include claims that would be infringed only as a consequence of further modification of this implementation. If you or your agent or exclusive licensee institute or order or agree to the institution of patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that this implementation of VP8 or any code incorporated within this implementation of VP8 constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, or inducement of patent infringement, then any patent rights granted to you under this License for this implementation of VP8 shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
                    All this does is simply revokes the suing parties use of patents that are part of WebM's portfolio. It does not, as you claim, "if you look at it with the intention of, or use information pulled from it to attack google, then screw you, you have no right to even THINK about it and we'll sue your ass for license/copyright infringement until you're bankrupt."

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Veerappan View Post
                      He was making a pun. 'Bali' is only 1 letter off from 'Ball'. To release a version of a product could in this case be called a code drop.

                      So:
                      Release the version codenamed 'Bali'
                      Becomes:
                      Drop the ball.
                      Also, they drop a ball in Times Square, NYC at the beginning of every year.
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Square_Ball

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by sturmflut View Post
                        FFMPEGs implementation still has its pros: it does not just use x86 optimizations, but also leverages existing DSP code for other platforms. For example I don't see any mention of ARM NEON optimizations done by Google, so they do not yet care about Android phones.
                        ....
                        it's Not a Problem really ,as more and more Fast SIMD get's written for 128bit NEON in x264 Today, then you will be able to simply use most of that for the x264 -vp8 and indeed the x264 -h262 output modes later

                        so go and write that ARM v7 NEON SIMD you keep putting off and post a direct link to you're paste bin patch on #264-dev and get some advice on how to quickly improve/intigrate it.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X