Originally posted by Nobu
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Google's New VP8 Codec SDK Is Better, Faster
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View PostI'm guessing it's because the patent trolling was just a pile of FUD.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ex-Cyber View PostAs far as I remember, MPEG LA never even claimed that they did have patents covering WebM, just that they were "looking into" creating a WebM patent pool. The only stronger claim I saw came from an x.264 developer who was basically just making an argument from incredulity ("VP8 is simply way too similar to H.264"), while the rest of his post made it pretty obvious that On2 was trying very hard to avoid techniques patented by others.
The way a patent works is that it's divided up into:
"The Abstract"
"Claims"
"Dependent Claims"
The abstract is unimportant, other then it can be used to help define terms. The Dependent claims is irrelevant mostly for the purpose of patent avoidance.
The important part is the claims section.
In the claim that is were it describes the invention.
It usually goes something like this (paraphrasing):
In order to do X you need to do:
A) step 1
B) step 2
C) step 3
D) step 4
etc.
Each item in the claim is important. If you have software that does A, B, D, but not C... then you don't violate the patent. Your free and clear. That's it. People get confused and they read the beginning part of the patent, the abstract, and they get confused and think that that is were the patent is defined. It's not, it's just there so you get a better idea about the point behind the patent. The part that actually defines the patent, the actual part that you would have to fight in court is the claims section.
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. As long as Vp8 people set out specifically to create a video codec that avoided all of H.264's patents then they could do that relatively easily as long as you had huge gobs of cash to pay for the lawyers and programmers needed. Which given the millions of dollars Google has poured into this....
It's the _Unknown_ patents that will fuck you. Its' the patents that nobody is licensing and they are just sitting on and waiting around for people to put enough investment in a particular piece of software to then jump out and start suing.
Vp8 is probably vulnerable to unknown patents.
But the trick is so are other codecs like H.264.
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?
It would utterly destroy them. It would prove that nobody has to pay them a single dime to get H.264-like performance.... they just have to switching to Vp8 instead.
MPEG-LA will continue to make noise, but it's just all barking at this point with no real teeth to back it up.
Comment
-
Originally posted by XorEaxEax View PostThe only way someone can PROVE there's no patent infringement is in a court of law.
Originally posted by XorEaxEax View PostObviously Google wouldn't release Webm if they thought it was a patent liability
Nowadays it is extremely hard to develop a high-tech product which does not infringe any patents. Every major company lost at least one patent suit against somebody because they forgot/overlooked a patent. 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.
Originally posted by XorEaxEax View PostOn the licencing side Webm is of course 100% better than h264 since Google gives everyone a worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free patent license to use Webm.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by drag View PostSo 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.
The US patent law has allowed such patents for decades.
Originally posted by drag View PostVp8 is probably vulnerable to unknown patents.
But the trick is so are other codecs like H.264.
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 PostAs 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?
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
-
Originally posted by sturmflut View PostThe 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
-
Originally posted by sturmflut View PostNo, it's called "patent research", and every company does either before they start developing something, or before they publish it.
Originally posted by sturmflut View PostGoogle 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.
Originally posted by sturmflut View PostWebM 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.
Originally posted by sturmflut View PostGoogle could only give you that kind of license if they actually owned the patents, or settled an agreement with all parties owning patents.
Originally posted by sturmflut View PostThe 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by sturmflut View PostVP8 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.
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
Comment