“Google and MPEG LA announced today that they have entered into agreements granting Google a license to techniques that may be essential to VP8 and earlier-generation VPx video compression technologies under patents owned by 11 patent holders. The agreements also grant Google the right to sublicense those techniques to any user of VP8, whether the VP8 implementation is by Google or another entity. It further provides for sublicensing those VP8 techniques in one next-generation VPx video codec. As a result of the agreements, MPEG LA will discontinue its effort to form a VP8 patent pool.” The word that stood out to me: the auxiliary verb ‘may’, which has a rather low epistemic modality. To me, this indicates that this is not so much a clear-cut case of VP8 infringing upon patents, but more a precautionary move on Google’s part.
Google, MPEG LA sign agreement covering VP8
113 Comments
-
2013-03-07 11:49 pm
jared_wilkesI already acknowledged my error about sublicensees but was unable to edit it quick enough.
I’m unsure of the legalese necessary for Google to claim its royalty-free if they are paying the royalties themselves. If you want to think that’s “free”, that’s fine. I will still classify it as paid for by Google.
2013-03-07 10:37 pm
Stop equaling granted software patents with innovations, as we’ve seen countless times in the past these patents are very often being granted without being the least bit innovative.
That’s how the system works. You apply for a patent, if it passes some basic scrunity you’re granted a patent, and if someone else feels it is invalid, they can ask the relevant Governmental agencies to make a determination in that regard.
Just because you view some of them as frivolous and invalid (and I don’t disagree) it does not mean that they are all bad.
Obviously VP8 is potentially infringing on other software patents given how broad and widely defined they are by conscious design, same goes for h264/h265 and sadly practically all other software out there.
Correct. H264 never claimed that they were an unencumbered spec. What they do have is infrastructure in place to license the thousand or so patents that make up the spec. In addition, they are also a central place for future patent holders to be included in the pool.
That does not mean that they are in fact infringing. This has to be decided in court (hopefully by a skilled judge and jury). I have no doubt that under courtroom scrutiny extremely few granted software patents will remain valid.
We hold the same position. Patents are granted by the USPTO, but validated by a Judge or some government panel.
Still I think this is a wise move by Google, and a great day for the idea of a free open source royalty free web video standard.
Of course its a wise move. They avoid going to court. I’d argue it was their only sensible move.
With the potential patent threat thwarted we can finally have a standard that runs across all browsers without anyone having to pay a licence fee to implement it, same goes for anyone wanting to start a site serving online video in one form or another.
Thanks to Google doing what some more sensible people have been advocating all along: Taking a license.
If Google would do this with Android, Thom would run out of patent articles to write about. They need to take a license.
2013-03-07 10:03 pm
it ranges from unlikely to impossible that VP8 doesn’t infringe at least on some of the innovations covered by the MPEG LA patent pool.
I don’t think so. Looks more like Google paying these trolls to stop spreading FUD (so Apple and MS would have no lame excuses to avoid VPx because of “uncertainty”). Trolls are happy to get the money of course, but this whole thing doesn’t prove anything about actual codec and whether it’s patent encumbered or not. If Google actually licensed some patents – they should be disclosed in order to evaluate whether they apply or not.
I suspect Google won’t disclose anything, because they didn’t license any patents. They just paid the trolls so they would bug off. It’s kind of good and bad. Good since VP8 can be more widely adopted, and bad since it only encourages further patent racket. I think not feeding the trolls would be a better approach in the long term.
Edited 2013-03-07 22:10 UTC
-
Nelson
Hey, I’m cool with whatever rationale you think of. If you want to think that Google is paying somebody else money because Google is in a position of leverage, then so be it.
-
jared_wilkes
Someone has trouble with reading: “they have entered into agreements granting Google a license to techniques that may be essential to VP8 and earlier-generation VPx video compression technologies under patents owned by 11 patent holders.”
-
shmerl
So, what are those patents? Until this information is published, all the above are just empty words.
-
jared_wilkes
The announcement specifies licensing of techniques covered by patents owned by 11 different organizations.
I don’t see what is speculative about saying that Google has paid for and acknowledged that VP8 is not patent-free or monetarily-free.
-
shmerl
what is speculative about saying that Google has paid for and acknowledged that VP8 is not patent-free or monetarily-free.
Because that’s not how it was worded. The only solid evidence would be those patents explicitly listed.
Edited 2013-03-07 22:50 UTC
-
-
shmerl
They can claim whatever, like owning the moon. Without proof – all those are empty words.
When patents are disclosed, they can be evaluated (whether they really apply or not). Like in case of the Opus audio codec and bogus claims by Huawei and Qualcom.
Edited 2013-03-07 22:55 UTC
-
Nelson
They can claim whatever, like owning the moon. Without proof – all those are empty words.
When patents are disclosed, they can be evaluated (whether they really apply or not). Like in case of the Opus audio codec and bogus claims by Huawei and Qualcom.
Empty words convincing enough for Google to take a royalty bearing license. Must be a nice moon.
-
shmerl
No, MPEG-LA didn’t convince Google to pay. MS and Apple essentially did I think. Google can be sure that no patents from MPEG-LA affect them, but MS and Apple don’t care. So in order to “convince” MS and Apple to start supporting VPx, Google decided to pay a bribe to the trolls. Since they can’t just outright formalize it as a bribe, they decided to “license” something (random). 11 is the number that was sufficient for the trolls I guess. That’s how I see it.
Edited 2013-03-07 23:07 UTC
-
jared_wilkes
I assure you, Apple still has zero motivation (outside of WebRTC but who knows if that will win out) to support WebM, and I assure you they will not. Next theory?
-
Nelson
Uh, Microsoft won’t support VP8 any more today than yesterday.
Its good that Google took a license, but Microsoft still likely has technical reservations about VP8.
-
2013-03-08 2:28 am
lemur2Uh, Microsoft won’t support VP8 any more today than yesterday.
Its good that Google took a license, but Microsoft still likely has technical reservations about VP8.
Skype uses VP8.
http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/08/03/skype.using.vp8.even….
http://gigaom.com/2011/08/03/skype-vp8-video-conferencing/
“technical reservations”? Pffffft.
-
jared_wilkes
Yup. Skype used VP8 before it was purchased by Microsoft and it still does today. In what way is Microsoft supporting VP8 now more than yesterday?
Edited 2013-03-08 02:40 UTC
-
lemur2
Yup. Skype used VP8 before it was purchased by Microsoft and it still does today. In what way is Microsoft supporting VP8 now more than yesterday?
Not the point. In what way does Microsoft using VP8 in one of its products indicate that Microsoft thinks VP8 is technically inferior?
That is the question.
-
jared_wilkes
Well, it was Nelson’s point so it makes your comment irrelevant.
However, It’s used in significantly fewer products than h.264. Certainly doesn’t indicate they think it’s superior.
Edited 2013-03-08 02:52 UTC
-
lemur2
Well, it was Nelson’s point so it makes your comment irrelevant.
However, It’s used in significantly fewer products than h.264. Certainly doesn’t indicate they think it’s superior.
Microsoft’s objections to VP8 have all been directed at patent threats, not technical inferiority.
Patent threat has now been removed.
Edited 2013-03-08 02:54 UTC
-
jared_wilkes
Yeah, you can sit around waiting for Microsoft to start replacing h.264 with WebM. I won’t be sitting with you.
-
-
shmerl
The statement doesn’t even worth the bits it takes on the disk until the patents are disclosed.
Edited 2013-03-07 23:06 UTC
-
jared_wilkes
Wow, you are the bonehead claiming that Google isn’t paying for a license based on the logic of “because THEY can claim whatever” even in the case where THEY is Google.
Ars Technica got Google to answer the question of: are you paying for patent licenses with the answer “it is a commercial agreement.” If you want to be silly and claim that there is no payment because MPEGLA can just say “whatever”, so be it.
-
2013-03-07 10:59 pm
Thom HolwerdaMay.
MAY.
Low epistemic modality, i.e., techniques that POSSIBLY are essential to VP8. If they were certain, MPEG-LA wouldn’t have used this particular auxiliary verb.
May. Look it up.
Edited 2013-03-07 23:00 UTC
-
Nelson
Parsing the words of a PR press release to try to play a semantics game.
Everyone else in this thread has their own rationale for how this is somehow good for Google, but you have by far the funniest.
-
Thom Holwerda
There you go again, putting words in my mouth I have never said. I thought we went over this.
I never said anything about this being good for Google, so please do not lie about me having done so.
-
Nelson
No, of course not. You’re not doing mental gymnastics. Not at all.
Google is very clearly trying to save face, and here you are, towing the line.
If Google thought with any serious credibility that they could dismantle the MPEG LA, they’d go for it. They can’t, so they sat down and took a license.
The fact is that VP8 was erroneously paraded around as patent unencumbered, this isn’t the case, made obvious by the royalty bearing license Google just took.
I don’t mind a discussion about the technical merits of VP8 and H264, and I don’t care what Google does with its videos on YouTube, but Google was always being dishonest about the situation regarding patents and VP8.
I’m waiting for the blockbuster Microsoft-Motorola patent deal and how you’ll try to spin that as well.
-
-
-
2013-03-08 10:35 am
-
2013-03-08 12:58 pm
lindkvisThe fact is that VP8 was erroneously paraded around as patent unencumbered, this isn’t the case, made obvious by the royalty bearing license Google just took.
You’re missing the obvious. MPEG-LA licenses are expensive. VP8 licenses, however, are given out free by Google and they have no idea of knowing how many licensees there are.
If MPEG-LA had a definite claim there is no way Google would have been able to get a full “royalty bearing license” to ship for free to an undetermined amount of people.
Since neither Google or MPEG-LA will ever know how many VP8 licensees there are, it also follows that the license can’t possibly be “royalty bearing” (Royalty are usage-based payments).
What has happened here is that MPEG-LA did not have a definite claim, but Google couldn’t be 100% sure. So both parties agreed to a license which is obviously much, much cheaper than if MPEG-LA had a definite claim.
-
jared_wilkes
You’re missing the obvious. MPEG-LA licenses are expensive.
MPEG-LA licenses are not very expensive. There are caps for most things across the board and Google can easily afford them.
VP8 licenses, however, are given out free by Google and they have no idea of knowing how many licensees there are.
Of course, Google has plenty of means to know how many licenses are issued. They can directly measure their own device sales and they can monitor OEM sales too. Counting VP8 licenses is no more difficult than Microsoft counting mpeg licenses. In fact, since these companies are highly likely to hit caps, all they have to provide is a best-guess approximate up to the point they hit the cap, and then it’s no longer a matter of counting.
If MPEG-LA had a definite claim there is no way Google would have been able to get a full “royalty bearing license” to ship for free to an undetermined amount of people.
Why not? MPEGLA just want their licenses. If they had a VP8, they would be responsible for seeking licensing from many vendors and it would be far more complex. With Google paying for everything, it’s far more simple. So the current license could be as simple as their planned VP8 license pool but now they only need to account for one licenseee.
Since neither Google or MPEG-LA will ever know how many VP8 licensees there are, it also follows that the license can’t possibly be “royalty bearing” (Royalty are usage-based payments).
I see no logic to this claim. Of course, Google can count licenses and of course the license agreement is certainly not free.
What has happened here is that MPEG-LA did not have a definite claim, but Google couldn’t be 100% sure. So both parties agreed to a license which is obviously much, much cheaper than if MPEG-LA had a definite claim.
None of what you claim is obvious. It actually requires a bigger leap of faith and a ton more assumptions than a simple clear reading of the announcement.
-
lemur2
Of course, Google has plenty of means to know how many licenses are issued. They can directly measure their own device sales and they can monitor OEM sales too.
This doesn’t count developers (other than Google) writing their own code for VP8.
Here is Google’s code, called libvpx:
http://www.webmproject.org/code/
Here is ffmpeg’s code, called ffvp8:
http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/499
VLC writes their own VP8 code, I believe, as does Mozilla and Skype.
How can Google possibly be expected to keep track of all these third parties writing VP8 code? It is true to say that all these parties are licensed for VP8, but that is because Google grants everybody an irrevocable, perpetual, royalty-free (zero cost) license to use and/or implement VP8.
All of these downstream third parties are now granted a license for the 11 patents from MPEG LA, also.
FTA:
The agreements also grant Google the right to sublicense those techniques to any user of VP8, whether the VP8 implementation is by Google or another entity.
Edited 2013-03-10 07:18 UTC
-
jared_wilkes
Everything about the statement says: we’ll let you craft this statement to save as much face as possible but everyone will know and understand the truth — that you are licensing patents that you need for your format.
That’s the most positive thing out of this for Google: they got to word the announcement.
-
2013-03-08 10:36 am
VandersEverything about the statement says: we’ll let you craft this statement to save as much face as possible but everyone will know and understand the truth — that you are licensing patents that you need for your format.
The statement is so short is basically says nothing at all, other than “One of us agreed not to sue the other one.”
To me it seems that as it covers sub-licensing and because it was done so quietly and quickly, Google were probably in a strong position: On2 held video codec patents too you know.
Either way, the fact is now that VP8 and WebM are in an even stronger position. The argument of “I can’t use VP8 because of possible patent issues” is now invalid. I look forward to seeing Apples response to this.
-
2013-03-08 2:15 am
TechGeekIt says that Google licensed 11 patents, that *MAY* cover vp8. There is no admission by Google that it does.
-
jared_wilkes
Also, Google is risking Google Maps being completely shut down in Germany, on mobile including competing platforms and on the web, because they are unwilling to let Motorola become one of the last Android OEMS (excepting Samsung) to license Microsoft patents… The suggestion that they have a strong case in VP8 vs. MPEGLA but just decided to cave to end the FUD (which has been completely nonexistent since shortly after Google’s announcements because VP8 has gone no where, absolutely zero progress on the market place)… well, that’s just special. And complete and utter denial.
-
shmerl
which (FUD) has been completely nonexistent since shortly after Google’s announcements
FUD was triggered by MPEG-LA saying “they are going after” blah, blah, blah. Apple and MS slyly said they aren’t going to implement VPx since “it’s risky”. That’s exactly how FUD was working until now. So Google tries to fix that. I see no evidence so far that there are some actual patents which affect VPx. WebM blog writes they’ll publish more info later, so let’s wait. But I suspect we might never get info about what patents Google licensed if any.
We anticipate having the terms of our sublicense ready in the next few weeks. When those terms are ready we will blog about them here, so watch this space.
Edited 2013-03-07 22:53 UTC
2013-03-07 9:00 pm
if the whole thing went to court there would most likle be a hand full of patents google infrigens wieth vp8
but there definitely would be many casualties among the MPEG-LAs patents
-
2013-03-08 3:15 pm
aarghIf there are millions of mosquitos attacking you, do you fight just to kill a few until you bleed to death or do you simply go inside the house and think how to solve the bigger problem of drying up the swamp?
-
2013-03-14 10:36 pm
-
TechGeek
if the whole thing went to court there would most likle be a hand full of patents google infrigens wieth vp8
but there definitely would be many casualties among the MPEG-LAs patents
I also think that some of the MPEG-LA codecs would be found infringing ON2 patents as well. While Google may be standing in a patent minefield, so is every other member of the MPEG-LA. One wrong step could lead to everyone getting blown up.
2013-03-07 10:54 pm
There are about thirty H.264 licensors.
Giants in manufacturing and R&D, most of them. Mitsubishi, Philips, and so on.
1200 licensees.
For all practical purposes, the entire global video industry.
Every link in the chain from the video camera to the video display.
HEVC/H.265 is looking damn good. Too good for someone playing catch-up like Google.
-
2013-03-08 9:39 am
Well, as long as addition and multiplications can be patented, of course, there is no way VP8 and by the other any other software on Earth can exist without infringing those patents.
By the way, i’ve got a patent about answering to my comments. Sue you.
2013-03-08 1:58 pm
Does anyone use VP8? That’s a serious question, I don’t follow the video codec saga closely, I lose interest when my brswser plays videos without a problem, and my not very well informed perception was that VP8 had not got much traction. Anyone know how wide spread VP8 usage is?
-
lemur2
Does anyone use VP8? That’s a serious question, I don’t follow the video codec saga closely, I lose interest when my brswser plays videos without a problem, and my not very well informed perception was that VP8 had not got much traction. Anyone know how wide spread VP8 usage is?
Virtually all of Youtube video is encoded in VP8. If you get a “youtube downloader” extension (say for firefox), then you will see a .webm version as one of those available for download for almost every video.
Skype uses VP8.
All Android mobile devices since Gingerbread (version 2.3) support VP8.
Thursday, November 8, 2012 : Sixth Generation VP8 Hardware Accelerators Released
The VP8 hardware cores have now been licensed to over 80 chip companies, and both the decoder and encoder are in mass production from a number of partners.
It is an implicit admission of what people have been saying all along, that it ranges from unlikely to impossible that VP8 doesn’t infringe at least on some of the innovations covered by the MPEG LA patent pool.
It was always foolish for some of the VP8 proponents to claim that it wasn’t a patent encumbered implementation simply because Google told them so.
I agree, but in any case this seems like a good outcome.
Generally these royalties are very, very small and the whole point of the MPEG LA is to facilitate their licensing.
I would’ve been surprised if Google picked this fight. I’m glad this ended well, as all patent disputes should.
No, they are not that small. E.g. MPEG2 rate is $2.00 per encoder/decoder/consumer product, and that’s a new and reduced rate: http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/M2/Documents/m2web_licenseterms…
These days this is a big part of even a hardware player costs, not to mention software: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/how-much-do-dvd-and-digital-media-pl…
It’s true that, say, MPEG4 and H.264 have lower costs, but they are not guaranteed to stay at this level, and are still quite expensive for free (as in beer) software.
To answer some other FUD you’re spreading:
* There’s, of course, zero probability that there are no patent holders that would want to try suing Google. What’s hard to say is if those patent holders have any valid patents covering VP8 format or its implementation. We still don’t know that. We know there are at least 11 holders claiming they have relevant IP, but such claims are often wrong (e.g. see recent claims re Opus). Without knowing specific patents we can only speculate.
* On2 never claimed there’s no IP covering their codecs. They claimed they own all necessary IP. This is what “patent unencumbered” meant.
* MPEG LA has multiple patent pools. They don’t claim that any existing pool (e.g. MPEG2 or H.264) covers VP8. That’s why they announced creation of a new pool, which wasn’t too successful, but now they are ditching it anyway.
I think everyone, even MPEG LA, agrees that the possibility of exploitable patents being infringed in VP8 is minimal. The deal actually confirms it – MPEG LA would have never given VP8 green light if they had a real chance to stop it.
But, the risk of losing a court case is not the same as having one. The latter is much higher and potential damage is only slightly smaller. It doesn’t matter if you go bust because of a $10M penalty or $0.1M costs of defending yourself.
Big companies (like Google or Samsung) don’t care because the can afford the cost of a court battle. It does not affect individuals because the only thing MPEG LA can do with millions of “infringers” is to spread FUD. But there are a lot of middle-size companies that could have shipped products using VP8 but have instead decided to pay a couple of bucks for h.264 license to avoid spending $100k on lawyers. This deal takes the risk of having a legal action away, and clearly Google expects this will bring more VP8-enabled products and services to the market.
“I think everyone…”
Stop right there! You’ve already shown your thinking to be faulty.
Depending entirely on what lottery numbers Google and MPEG LA are handed out before a patent lawsuit. Unlikely to impossible? Hardly.
You’re quite obviously right, given that Google didn’t sign an agreeme- Oh wait, oops.
Getting the matter out of the way is likely cheaper than suffering under the FUD created by a potential lawsuit.
Would it still be FUD if Google was found to infringe on the MPEG LA’s patents?
Just wondering.
You’re spouting circular nonsense.
If Google was found to infringe MPEG LA’s patents, then it would not be Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, it would be true (at least in some legal sense).
See that word I’ve highlighted there? I assume you didn’t see that in the original post above.
Hang on, back up: before today whenever VP8 or WebM were mentioned it was inevitable that 50% of the discussion would be something along the lines of “Waaa! VP8 must violate MPEG-LA patents! Why won’t Google do anything about it?!”. Now that Google have done something about it, you’re now complaining about that?
Why don’t you just get straight to the point and say “I don’t like Google so I’m going to be negative about absolutely everything they do.” and we can avoid all this extra waffle?
Or that some VP8 patents now owned by Google are needed by MPEG LA covered technologies, yes On2 technologies had patents too before MPEG4 become so many entrenched.
I only find possible that this is happening because both parts have a lot of power (patent based) or some Google friends members of the MPEG LA group want peace
I thought VP8 was not patent encumbered? Kinda throws that right out of the window.
Question raises: is it possible to write even simplest software that is not patent encumbered for sure?
In my opinion it is very doubtful, that is why the big players build up their patent portfolios. FUD is the reason.
I would suggest that saying that VP8 is not patent encumbered really means that it is not practically patent encumbered. (as weird as it sounds)
Edited 2013-03-07 21:53 UTC
No. Which makes the hilarious comments some people made when VP8 was announced even funnier. This is an impossibility.
You can argue about VP8 having better technical merits, but what you can’t do is claim immunity from patent litigation. It is just at odds with reality.
Yes, so long as you make it clear its intended for use outside of America.
No it doesnt. What it does is avoid costly litigation to prove it one way or the other. But considering how long the MPEG-LA have been asking for patents to use against Google, if they had anything concrete, they would have already gone to court. The real question is will this allow Google to use VP8 as an open source codec like it planned.
Google may have been completely right about VP8 all along. But sometimes its just cheaper to settle.
Sometimes it’s cheaper for Google to stop pretending it is above patent law. I don’t know if VP8 infringes on H264 patents or not, but what is obviously clear is that it is absurd to claim it infringes on no patents at all. That’s just not a reality.
To diss H264 for being patent encumbered while praising VP8 for not being patent encumbered is wrong. The fact of the matter is, it likely does infringe on some patent, some where, by somebody. So selling people on the premise that it is some sort of patent sanctuary is inaccurate.
Google is the same company that went up against Sun. If Google thought they genuinely had a chance to invalidate a bunch of MPEG LA patents, it would’ve jumped at the chance. That’s peanuts compared to the upside for Google.
They likely determined that VP8 probably infringed on patents, and took a license.
To defend the devil, H264 could be as vulnerable to OnTech patents as VP8 is to MPEG-LA ones. That gives some amount of safety. While patent sanctuary is definitely a stretch, one should not succumb to FUD – and that is what Google in my opinion is fighting for.
As we established in other thread, anything could be patent encumbered so why not make a case for not using zlib, XML or any other technology now widely in use.
Let’s not succumb to FUD.
Precisely. The whole arrangement seems to be simply a case of agreeing that “You don’t sue me, and I won’t sue you”.
Where’s the line about MPEGLA or any of its licensors taking a license for ON2 technologies?
It is the same line that says “no admission that VP8 infringes” and later says “commercial agreement“.
Having a license is merely “permission to do/use something”. This does not imply actual use, it is merely a grant of permission.
There is no statement of “no admission that VP8 infringes” in the announcement by Google and MPEGLA. Do you actually think I care about what you think? You and a few others are holding onto an absurd delusion that Google is not paying for this license; that, in fact, the MPEGLA needed to settle to avoid paying Google and/or having its patents invalidated… but if such was the case, why wouldn’t they actually announce that the agreement is mutual, that licensing is bidirectional?
Because it’s not.
Edited 2013-03-08 02:58 UTC
And where is the line about Google paying for MPEGLA patents?
What do you think they got a license for? Do you actually think MPEG is issuing free licenses?
They made the deal to avoid the “appearance” of being patent liable. That is not anywhere even in the same ball park as actually patent encumbered. Keep in mind that most of the people who want VP8 to be patent encumbered are the people pushing h.264. For a little bit of money, Google has now taken away their sharp pointy stick. AND Google can still give away the technology so as to be in compliance with W3C. For this being an epic fail for Google, how did they manage to come out with something that even h.264 can’t achieve? This is a win for Google if it gets VP8 as the next web standard.
Apparently, they might be soon: VP8 could become MPEG standard.
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/VP8-could-become-MPEG-standa…
Edited 2013-03-10 12:16 UTC
They likely decided that they were infringing, so they took a free unlimited license for current and future versions of their codec, for any possible user or implementor in the world, present or future?
Yes, that is what’s most likely.
They now have an agreement in hand that says Google is paying them for IP… That Google that said it was completely free monetarily and of other people’s patents.
I would say that’s pretty damn concrete, more concrete than a legal action.
Also, the fact that MPEGLA did reach an agreement with a competing format belies that, in fact, that format is not remotely superior and in no way poses a threat.
How do you know they are paying? I don’t suppose you’ve read the licensing terms?
Yes, you and your denial are right — MPEGLA granted them free licenses.
No it’s not. It could easily mean that they just don’t want any drawn out patent disputes in court to throw a wrench into vp8 being used as a web video standard.
You can be certain that just as MPEGLA contains broad patents which can apply to methods used in VP8, the same goes for the many patents On2/Motorola has in regards to methods used by MPEGLA patent holders.
As for vp8, no, it’s not superior to h264, atleast not in quality per bit. However it’s not far off (there’s been alot of improvements in VP8 these past years) and vp8 is primarily aimed at web video, and from what I’ve read it’s very impressive in terms of ‘real-time’ video.
Obviously this is why Google bought On2 to begin with, they want their own codec which they can develop to be as effective as possible for the services they provide, it’s not as if they will be doing less online video transfer in the future (Google Glass says hello).
Thankfully they are being (as often) generous and are releasing this as a royalty free open source codec which can be used by anyone.
The next iteration of h264 is h265, and the next iteration of vp8 is vp9, both are in active development and it’s pretty impossible to gauge their quality against eachother due to their state of flux in regards to effectiveness/tuning but needless to say they both already improve on their predecessors.
When the vp9 specification is finally frozen it will be interesting to see if Google will need to make another patent agreement with MPEGLA or if they already took care of any possibly infringing patents in the existing agreement.
It’s not free. It’s underwritten by Google. It is not patent free. Google owns patents and has granted everyone access. And they have licensed MPEGLA patents and they will pay for that licensing for everyone that wants to use it. For an inferior format. This whole thing is a huge joke, and Google should feel embarassed at how silly and pointless this whole attempt was. Mozilla and Opera should feel like complete morons for jumping on it.
If you want to think that is a free and patent-free format that is useful for the web, have fun with that.
Edited 2013-03-07 23:22 UTC
Wow, I didn’t think anyone could spout more irrational hatred towards Google than Nelson has done on occasions in the past, but you take the cake.
That’s what free means: free for everyone to use. Nothing is ever free to produce. VP8 already was not free for Google: it had to buy On2, pay to engineers, marketing etc.
It’s free for you to use via Google but it will never be free for Google for you to use it. Again, if Google and the free software idealogues are cool with that delusion, so am I. I will still call it “paid by Google” and not free.
You are assuming that Google are paying something. That is not indicated by the facts. It could well be that Google have simply agreed to not assert the patents in VP8 they hold against any of the MPEG LA consortium.
“You don’t sue us, we won’t sue you”.
It is indicated by facts. Your delusion is not supported by the facts so you are clinging to straws.
How is it indicated? Google are continuing to give out a perpetual, royalty-free and irrevocable license to everyone downstream who wants to to use and/or implement VP8.
That is the pertinent fact.
As TechGeek posted: It says that Google licensed 11 patents, that *MAY* cover vp8. There is no admission by Google that it does.
That is another indicative fact.
Google couldn’t do that if they had to actually pay anything. It is far, far more likely to be a simple “you don’t sue me and I won’t sue you” commercial arrangement.
Edited 2013-03-08 02:18 UTC
Maybe Google giving it away free is pertinent to you. Not to me. The low cost of h.264 patents and not having an ideology that is against paying for things of value to me means absolutely nothing has changed in this regard: Google offered a crappier, not widely supported format for free yesterday and they still do today
Indicative of what? I’ve been witness to innumerable patent licensing deals, I can’t recall a single one which stated we admit we are definitely infringing x, y, or z. What’s indicative is that you acknowledge that Google is “licensing patents” and that there is no indication of the opposite.
Why not? Apple licenses mpeg patents and gives it to users for free. This happens all the time. When WebM first emerged as an “option” (ha ha ha), there was frequently talk of “if Google decided to pay for all the licenses for h.264…” Google could easily pay the licenses and do so at their own expense.
The point remains that profit = sale price – costs. One can increase profit by either increasing sale price or by reducing costs. Google gives away rights to their VP8 codec for zero sale price. Fact. The only way this can make commercial sense for Google is if doing so reduces costs. Fact.
(VP8 is not an inferior codec, BTW, but that is another discussion entirely).
We will just have to agree to differ, I suppose. Strongly differ.
Bullshit, Apple licences mpeg patents for their products for which they charge you money, it’s not free, that licence cost is baked into the asking price.
You can use Google’s V8 for free without buying or using any Google products.
Hm, you can download Windows version of iTunes for free, and use it without buying anything…
Also, your absurd ellipses of my quote is evident: I said: it’s not free, because it is underwritten by Google. You contorted my statement to make it appear that I was saying that it was not free because it is patent encumbered. Two separate statements.
http://rjw57.github.com/notes/_images/montoya.jpg
I keep saying ellipses? Contorted? You don’t even make sense.
Google expects to be compensated for this outlay via not having to pay license fees per use of a video codec. That is to say, Google profits via a reduction in its costs rather than by charging end users a fee.
Yes, I’ve said this in another thread: http://www.osnews.com/permalink?554613
I think “belies” does not mean what you think it means.
I think the fact that Google got such an expansive license from MPEGLA belies MPEGLA’s statements that VP8 infringes important patents.
I think “belies” means contradicts the intended appearance revealing its true nature. What do you think it means?
You are partly correct … VP8 is patent encumbered, but Google gives everyone an irrevocable, perpetual, royalty-free license to use the patents embedded in VP8 which Google owns.
11 companies apparently had ambit claims that they had patented techniques which also applied to VP8. To head off possible (dubious) claims of infringement and subsequent lawsuits, without any admission that those techniques do apply:
FTA:
So the situation remains almost as before … anyone and everyone still has an irrevocable, perpetual royalty-free right to use and/or implement VP8. The only difference now is that the vague threat from MPEG LA of lawsuits against VP8 has now been eliminated as a possibility.
So you might say that any threat of a lawsuit has been thrown right out of the window.
Edited 2013-03-08 02:01 UTC
Could it mean that it is MPEG who is patent encumbered? Either that or VP8 infringes no MPEG-LA patents. Or why else have they deposed their weapons in exchange for nothing?
What is certain is that you’re clueless, and for some unfathomable reason full of love for MPEG-LA and full of hate for Google.
Stop equaling granted software patents with innovations, as we’ve seen countless times in the past these patents are very often being granted without being the least bit innovative.
Obviously VP8 is potentially infringing on other software patents given how broad and widely defined they are by conscious design, same goes for h264/h265 and sadly practically all other software out there.
That does not mean that they are in fact infringing. This has to be decided in court (hopefully by a skilled judge and jury). I have no doubt that under courtroom scrutiny extremely few granted software patents will remain valid.
Still I think this is a wise move by Google, and a great day for the idea of a free open source royalty free web video standard.
With the potential patent threat thwarted we can finally have a standard that runs across all browsers without anyone having to pay a licence fee to implement it, same goes for anyone wanting to start a site serving online video in one form or another.
After today, it’s no longer free. Or at least for Google and the sublicensees. Anyone else is still under legal threat.
We don’t know how much it cost for Google (if anything), but it’s free for everyone using the license:
http://blog.webmproject.org/2013/03/vp8-and-mpeg-la.html
http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/
Well, sure, if they get a license from Google. Ultimately, Google will have to remunerate underwriting a paid format someday though — they are a public company.
But yes, I noticed that sublicensees will receive a license for free but I was too late to edit.
There’s nothing stopping a public company to give out something for free, even if they had to pay for it, as long as they can convince shareholders that this will generate revenue or reduce costs in the long run.
E.g. whatever the cost of VP8 license was to Google can be much cheaper than H.264 rate for running YouTube.
How do you know what they’re paying? I assume you’ve read the license… oh wait, that only works if you’re saying it, right?
I don’t know how much, if anything, they are paying, which is why I say this is a possibility, not a fact. You claim facts.
Yes, I’m not self-deluded into believing that Google is not paying or more absurdly is actually getting paid because I can read.
But your reading comprehension sucks.
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!
What are you babbling about?
This agreement allows for Google to sublicense the techniques to any user of VP8, whether the VP8 implementation is by Google or another entity; this means that users can develop independent implementations of VP8 and still enjoy coverage under the sublicenses.
Google intends to license the techniques under terms that are in line with the W3C^aEURTMs definition of a Royalty Free License. This definition can be found here: http://www.w3.org/2001/07/SVG10-IPR-statements We anticipate having the sublicense ready in the next few weeks. The terms will appear on the WebM Project website at