Google & MPEG LA Reach VP8 Agreement

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Google & MPEG LA Reach VP8 Agreement

MPEG LA will not be forming a patent pool to go after Google's "royalty-free" VP8 video format...

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTMyMTA

[GreatEmerald]

Right, now does anyone have a Legal Speak to English translation?

[mazumoto]

Some more information here: http://www.h-online.com/open/news/it...l-1818785.html

[DeepDayze]

So does this mean MPEG-LA has caved in to Google, after VP8 has been proven to be a very solid alternative to the patent-encumbered H264 family of codecs?

[GreatEmerald]

That makes it a bit clearer, but... So MPEG LA wanted to find proof that VP8 was covered by software patents, but couldn't find enough, and now they officially gave up? It doesn't sound like a particularly important change...

[archibald]

It might not seem like much, but this is an important change.

The MPEG-LA was saying that they were putting together a patent pool since (they claimed) VP8 infringed on their members' patents. Apple was against WebM as the standard video format for HTML5 due to the "uncertain patent landscape". The major opposing force will have officially and publically declared "VP8 is dandy, no worries from us about patents there", so hopefully everybody can breathe more easily.

When the terms of the sublicensing are made public, there should be no cause for uncertainty: every web browser can implement WebM, and every operating system can have WebM support out of the box.

Assuming the sublicensing terms are good, this means there's a high-quality, open-standard, royalty-free video codec that can be used by anybody for any purpose.

[swrx]

MPEG LA were bluffing all along. This news means they have finally folded.

Their income comes from license fees for H264, so they had every incentive to spread FUD about VP8 for as long as they could get away with it.

None of this means that VP8 is safe from patent lawsuits. Or, for that matter, H264 with a license from MPEG LA. Just because some company promises not to sue you for patent violations (whether you've paid them a licensing fee or not) doesn't mean that someone else isn't sitting on another patent somewhere waiting to pounce.

Patents suck.

[xeekei]

VP8 isn't as good as H.264 I'm afraid. We need VP9! But I guess they're waiting for WebM to be adopted everywhere.

[DeepDayze]

VP8 isn't as good as H.264 I'm afraid. We need VP9! But I guess they're waiting for WebM to be adopted everywhere.

Looks like VP9 will also be covered under that agreement as well barring any other last minute patents tripping it up. So soon we'll see a codec that's as good as H.264, but if it is BETTER than h.264 that may make MPEG-LA howl and do more digging to see if there are any patents that cover VP9 (which I hope there are none)

[deanjo]

VP8 isn't as good as H.264 I'm afraid. We need VP9! But I guess they're waiting for WebM to be adopted everywhere.

Still too little, too late I'm afraid. h265 already has a large consortium of licensees. MPEG-LA achieved it's goal of putting enough uncertainty in WebM until h265 was ready to go again making Googles efforts futile.