The LGPL and video codecs [LWN.net]

The LGPL and video codecs

Posted Jun 11, 2009 5:00 UTC (Thu) by kraai (subscriber, #15664)
Parent article: The LGPL and video codecs

> In the end, as DiBona states, Googlealong with its lawyers, presumablyis comfortable that it is complying with the terms of the LGPL.

I think it just shows they're comfortable that their risk in this case is justified by the reward, not that they're actually in compliance.

> Google would seem to fit that bill, so, with luck, the Chrome implementation will flush out any submarine patents that some patent troll believes Theora infringes.

Alternatively, I don't think they'd be required to disclose that they've licensed such a patent, so if there is no such news, that doesn't necessarily mean it's safe for other browsers.

(Log in to post comments)

The LGPL and video codecs

Posted Jun 13, 2009 7:55 UTC (Sat) by oak (subscriber, #2786) [Link]

> so if there is no such news, that doesn't necessarily mean it's safe for
other browsers.

Also, Google's browser being free (as beer) and not a part of some
successful commercial product makes it less likely to flush out the patent
issues. It's not (included with something) sold for profit[1], so the
damages from using patents without license would be much smaller. I.e. it
makes sense for submarine patent owners to wait until there's wider
adoption.

[1] I guess somebody suing Google for damages could claim that Google
indirectly profits from Chrome, but that's a bit harder to translate into
actual numbers...

The LGPL and video codecs

Posted Jun 13, 2009 23:07 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

so the damages from using patents without license

There's no question of using patents without a license. Google knows it has the license to use the patents mentioned in the article. The question is is Google using free software (FFMPEG) without a copyright license.

But the damage considerations are the same. The damages for patent/copyright infringement aren't what the infringer gained by not licensing. They're what the owner lost.

That's always been a sticky point with free software, because the copyright owners have no intention of making money by restricting use of their work, making it hard to put a money value on the damage done by infringement.