MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
In order to participate in the creation of, and determine licensing terms for, a joint VP8 patent license, any party that believes it has patents that are essential to the VP8 video codec specification is invited to submit them for a determination of their essentiality by MPEG LA's patent evaluators. At least one essential patent is necessary to participate in the process, and initial submissions should be made by March 18, 2011. Although only issued patents will be included in the license, in order to participate in the license development process, patent applications with claims that their owners believe are essential to the specification and likely to issue in a patent also may be submitted."
Posted Feb 11, 2011 19:11 UTC (Fri)
by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Feb 11, 2011 23:08 UTC (Fri)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
And if they don't say with specificity, then Google should waltz away with the declaration.
Cheers,
Posted Feb 11, 2011 19:13 UTC (Fri)
by orev (guest, #50902)
[Link] (33 responses)
This fight should have been had 10 years ago. Now it's too late. Maybe we'll see a slow change over time like we did with GIF -> PNG, but in that case PNG actually offered some advantages over GIF. H.264 is superior to VP8 in quality (it doesn't matter if it's only slightly), and the mental idea of that is enough to keep people away from VP8.
Posted Feb 11, 2011 19:17 UTC (Fri)
by xav (guest, #18536)
[Link] (8 responses)
VP8 needs only to reach the same state: make it useless to sue about video codecs because switching is costless.
Posted Feb 11, 2011 19:33 UTC (Fri)
by orev (guest, #50902)
[Link] (1 responses)
Users of a technology just want things to work well, they don't care about the patent issues.
Posted Feb 11, 2011 21:11 UTC (Fri)
by jrn (subscriber, #64214)
[Link]
In the GIF -> PNG case, I don't think that's the full story. Early adoption was driven by concern about patents; testing led to improvements in rendering in browsers; such improvements made mainstream usage easier.
Posted Feb 11, 2011 22:03 UTC (Fri)
by lotzmana (subscriber, #3052)
[Link] (3 responses)
...nowadays nobody fears GIF lawsuits anymore.
The most safe standard today from point of view of patents is GIF. If you need to select a picture format and not fear any lawsuits choose GIF. It is protected by a patent that has expired. LZW compression and file format are forever patent free now.
Posted Feb 14, 2011 10:31 UTC (Mon)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Feb 14, 2011 16:31 UTC (Mon)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (1 responses)
(Yeah, I know it's slightly more complicated than that, but the bottom line is that GIF is now as safe from unknown patents as any other bit of software could ever be)
Posted Feb 14, 2011 19:54 UTC (Mon)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link]
Posted Feb 12, 2011 11:32 UTC (Sat)
by renox (guest, #23785)
[Link]
Uh? I remember someone trying to count the number of GIF&PNG images present on the web:
The reason why nobody fear lawsuits about GIF is that the patent expired..
> If someone wanted to sue you about it, just switch to PNG and you're done. VP8 needs only to reach the same state: make it useless to sue about video codecs because switching is costless.
I understand what you're saying but it's wrong: remember that for a long time IE didn't decode correctly PNG..
Posted Feb 12, 2011 11:38 UTC (Sat)
by epa (subscriber, #39769)
[Link]
Since 2003, PNG has supplanted GIF, but it only really took over after the GIF patent expired.
Posted Feb 11, 2011 19:18 UTC (Fri)
by bboissin (subscriber, #29506)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Feb 11, 2011 19:28 UTC (Fri)
by orev (guest, #50902)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Feb 12, 2011 0:48 UTC (Sat)
by jthill (subscriber, #56558)
[Link]
Posted Feb 11, 2011 19:18 UTC (Fri)
by DOT (subscriber, #58786)
[Link]
Posted Feb 11, 2011 19:24 UTC (Fri)
by dcg (subscriber, #9198)
[Link]
Posted Feb 11, 2011 19:25 UTC (Fri)
by man_ls (guest, #15091)
[Link]
This bit of news can be seen as a counter move by MPEG LA.
Posted Feb 11, 2011 19:29 UTC (Fri)
by Kit (guest, #55925)
[Link]
And also, in reality, there's very little of the web that's already taking advantage of the web's video tag for H264 video playback that _isn't_ named "youtube".
Posted Feb 11, 2011 19:41 UTC (Fri)
by kripkenstein (guest, #43281)
[Link] (1 responses)
Firefox + Chrome + Opera - the VP8 supporters - have quite a lot of market share together. In fact, they have a majority of market share in Europe!
> They could never throw a switch on Youtube and drop h.264 without also killing the site, so they are locked in there.
This doesn't need to be a switch that is turned off or on. It can be a gradient. Imagine that a new quality level comes out on YouTube... that is VP8 only. So you get better quality with VP8 enabled browsers. That would be enough to get Apple to put VP8 on the iPhone, I'd wager - Apple can't compromise on user experience, and VP8 is free anyhow.
Also, Google has other weapons here. Android is one. It is becoming the dominant smartphone OS, and it will support VP8.
Between YouTube, Android and the combination of Firefox/Chrome/Opera, Google has huge leverage to determine what video codecs ends up the standard.
Posted Feb 11, 2011 21:57 UTC (Fri)
by tuna (guest, #44480)
[Link]
Posted Feb 11, 2011 20:44 UTC (Fri)
by martinfick (subscriber, #4455)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Feb 12, 2011 3:29 UTC (Sat)
by pabs (subscriber, #43278)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Feb 12, 2011 5:29 UTC (Sat)
by martinfick (subscriber, #4455)
[Link] (1 responses)
Let's think a bit more about this, to see that this is nothing even remotely like GIF. Did Netscape require a plugin to view GIFs? How many web pages had GIFs in say 1995? Already more than there are web pages with videos in them today (likely)? But, by 10 years ago, the time of the original comparison, the question would be: how many GIFs to an html page do you think there were (10, 20?) No, this does not compare to any video format.
Posted Feb 15, 2011 3:17 UTC (Tue)
by pabs (subscriber, #43278)
[Link]
Posted Feb 12, 2011 23:04 UTC (Sat)
by jmalcolm (subscriber, #8876)
[Link]
Posted Feb 12, 2011 8:18 UTC (Sat)
by jku (subscriber, #42379)
[Link]
Posted Feb 12, 2011 9:51 UTC (Sat)
by exadon (guest, #5324)
[Link]
Posted Feb 12, 2011 17:15 UTC (Sat)
by jpnp (guest, #63341)
[Link] (3 responses)
1) Flash
2) HTML5 video
Currently, the vast, vast majority use option 1.
Adobe have announced that they will support vp8; once that is released it's up to google not end users which flash codec they see youtube with.
Today the majority of HTML5 video capable browsers (i.e. discount most IE which can't do HTML 5 at all) support vp8 rather than H.264; if the HTML5 use of youtube increases vastly there's no reason to think it won't be vp8.
I don't see why google couldn't throw the switch on desktop youtube a matter of months after flash starts to support it. These days flash installations get updated pretty quickly; the old versions tend to be a security nightmare and both Adobe and the browser makers push to get them updated.
The only real sticking point for google moving to vp8 for all their video delivery is mobile. iPads, android phones etc. currently have hardware support for H.264. Software vp8 offers poor performance and bad battery life in comparison. To switch mobile youtube to vp8 would require the widespread availability of hardware vp8, even in best case that will take years.
Posted Feb 12, 2011 18:51 UTC (Sat)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link] (2 responses)
let H.264 gain a reputation from the people who don't know any better as being the bad looking version when viewed on a good screen :-)
Posted Feb 13, 2011 23:40 UTC (Sun)
by PaulWay (guest, #45600)
[Link] (1 responses)
I show my brother a video on my Android and he looks it up on his iPhone. My VP8 video looks better and is lower bandwidth than his h.264 video. Case closed.
In other words, mobile _is_ the market VP8 should be aiming for.
I think the MPEG-LA wants to keep us thinking that h.264 is what 'everyone' uses, that 'everyone' wants it, and 'everything' is in h.264 - with the implication that video on the web has to be in h.264 or people will go elsewhere. The reality is that the users don't really care - if VP8 gets implemented then the users just go with that. MPEG-LA's only success is to get browsers to use h.264, and that will fade as soon as VP8 gets implemented everywhere because it's cheaper to license (as in free).
(I also think most platform vendors know that h.264 is a devil's bargain, and would gladly implement anything else - as soon as its licensing was clear and proven. This is why MPEG-LA is stirring the pot - they want as much FUD about licensing anything else as possible because then licensing h.264 doesn't look as bad. If you're given the alternative of eating a toad, eating a worm doesn't sound so bad...)
Have fun,
Paul
Posted Feb 14, 2011 22:26 UTC (Mon)
by rahvin (guest, #16953)
[Link]
No, they won't sue. They will spread lots and lots of FUD about this dangerous patent pool, and they may go after a few easy targets but they absolutely will never ever sue Google or anyone with deep enough pockets to support a patent lawsuit. They simply can't risk the revenues, at least not until it's apparent that VP8 has fully sidelined H.264 and their licensing revenue falls off a cliff.
Posted Feb 12, 2011 22:46 UTC (Sat)
by jmalcolm (subscriber, #8876)
[Link] (2 responses)
Second, Apple entered the music player market when it was very crowded. The market was also 90 percent or more MP3. Apple preferred ACC. What is Apple's market share now? Are the majority of online music sales MP3 or AAC?
Posted Feb 13, 2011 13:00 UTC (Sun)
by cesarb (subscriber, #6266)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Feb 13, 2011 16:40 UTC (Sun)
by jmalcolm (subscriber, #8876)
[Link]
What is taking them so long? Well, it is simply taking them a long time to release Firefox 4. The delay with WebM is entirely incidental to that.
Does the beta count? Matter of opinion I guess, but I have been using Firefox 4 for so long that I have trouble remembering what Firefox 3.5 (or 3.6 now I suppose) does or does not support.
In a discussion about what kind of "support" WebM is getting relative to H.264, it seems entirely correct to raise that a browser of Firefox's stature is committed to WebM and ideologically opposed to H.264. This fact will not be a trivial consideration when content providers choose video formats in the future.
In a lot of ways, we seem to be entering a game of chicken with IE and iOS on one side and Firefox and Android on the other.
Posted Feb 19, 2011 3:01 UTC (Sat)
by dmag (guest, #17775)
[Link]
Posted Feb 11, 2011 19:21 UTC (Fri)
by rfunk (subscriber, #4054)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Feb 13, 2011 16:48 UTC (Sun)
by jmalcolm (subscriber, #8876)
[Link] (1 responses)
If WebM becomes popular, many companies that have actual customers will want to use it. If they do, the WebM license limits their ability to pursue patent suits later.
So, if somebody has patents that they think are material to WebM they may need to choose between opposing it's adoption now or participating in it later.
This does not apply to pure patent trolls of course.
Posted Feb 15, 2011 19:17 UTC (Tue)
by njs (subscriber, #40338)
[Link]
Having that clause in the WebM license is better than not having it, but it's no guarantee.
Posted Feb 11, 2011 21:28 UTC (Fri)
by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047)
[Link] (16 responses)
Posted Feb 11, 2011 21:34 UTC (Fri)
by xxiao (guest, #9631)
[Link] (9 responses)
Posted Feb 11, 2011 22:36 UTC (Fri)
by Kit (guest, #55925)
[Link] (7 responses)
Posted Feb 11, 2011 22:49 UTC (Fri)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (6 responses)
It's obvious that they would rather have people use formats that require more money.
Somebody else needs to form a patent pool of patents that H.264 violates then sue the shit out of them.
Posted Feb 12, 2011 2:37 UTC (Sat)
by Imroy (guest, #62286)
[Link] (3 responses)
Seeing as the thing being called "h.264" should really be referred to as "MPEG-4 AVC" (or even "MPEG-4 Part 10"), I think the MPEG-LA probably already has a patent pool for it. And they use it - to get licensing fees of people using AVC.
The companies involved with the development of MPEG-4 AVC/h.264 were patenting their "discoveries" while they were working on it. By the time it was finalised, MPEG-4 AVC/h.264 was covered by a mountain of patents from many companies. Good luck finding other patents to fight the MPEG-LA or its members. Even if they were found, the two companies would likely simply enter into a cross-licensing agreement. That's how patents are used nowadays.
Posted Feb 12, 2011 7:26 UTC (Sat)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (2 responses)
> The companies involved with the development of MPEG-4 AVC/h.264 were patenting their "discoveries" while they were working on it.
It it's like any other patent-ecrusted 'standard' (like GSM, for example) then they went to great lengths specifically to incorporate patents into them.
That is instead of patenting parts of the codec during it's creation, they really designed the codec to be covered by as many patents as possible.
The whole patent system, especially the software part, needs to die a quick and painful death. It's a cancerous albatross hanging around the neck of technology hindering innovation and punishing productive companies and individuals at every corner. The laws are responsible for massive destruction of innovation and disruption of healthy economic activity.
> Even if they were found, the two companies would likely simply enter into a cross-licensing agreement.
Only if that suites their agenda.
> That's how patents are used nowadays.
Patents are mostly used in three ways:
1. The most common thing is that they sit around and do nothing. The companies that create them don't use them for anything, do not license them for anything, and have no benefit from them in any measurable way except for one... When the accounts come around they count as assets and they can use them to as bullet points to make them seem more innovative. That is probably 90-95% of all patents.
This is harmless.
2. Huge companies invest a great deal of money in patents for purpose #1, but in addition they cross license everything with one another. This way they use patents to form a cabal of privileged 'IP owners' that use it as a weapon to dramatically reduce the threat from competition from smaller and more nimble companies and organizations.
This is what is happening to Google, WebM, Open source community right now and has been going on for years.
This is damaging to markets, limits innovation, and prevents small players from growing. This is also why you don't see large established players like Microsoft or IBM calling out for the abolishment of patents even though it's a huge administrative burden and they are the frequent target or lawsuits.
3. Companies that are market failures, or IP holding companies that produce no products and provide no services, go around extorting successful and productive companies with threats of lawsuits. This is the
This is maddening and is a constant threat to all players big and small.
Posted Feb 12, 2011 14:07 UTC (Sat)
by cortana (subscriber, #24596)
[Link] (1 responses)
It's not always harmless. Every issued patent is a potential future threat, when the strategy of its owner changes to include patent shakedowns, or the patents are sold to (or the original company is bought by) another company whose business involves them.
Posted Feb 17, 2011 16:44 UTC (Thu)
by randomguy3 (subscriber, #71063)
[Link]
Posted Feb 12, 2011 13:06 UTC (Sat)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link] (1 responses)
The MPEG LA itself (unlike its member companies) does not produce H.264 software. They just hold the patents. There would be no point in suing the MPEG LA for patent infringement.
All that a second patent pool could do is to make anyone producing implementations of the patents in question (including possibly the members of the current MPEG LA) pay license fees to both patent pools.
Posted Feb 13, 2011 2:36 UTC (Sun)
by njs (subscriber, #40338)
[Link]
Posted Feb 11, 2011 23:06 UTC (Fri)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
If they make ANY noises about "having patents that need to be licenced", Google can ask them for a list. At which point, they face Hobson's choice. Refuse to be specific, and Google sues for a declaration of non-infringement. Be specific, and the patents will be put through the wringer by the community.
Either way, they lose :-) And if MS wins its appeal in the i4i case (you know, the appeal where people like Red Hat wrote an amicus in their favour!), then that Hobson's choice becomes even nastier :-)
Cheers,
Posted Feb 12, 2011 5:00 UTC (Sat)
by njs (subscriber, #40338)
[Link] (5 responses)
My theory is Apple and the rest of the H.264 patent pool members are behind this, as a way to sow fear and uncertainty around VP8, and push people back towards H.264. If some actual patents show up, then of course they'll think that's great; H.264 wins immediately. But I don't think they expect that to happen. If they had any solid patent claims themselves, then they'd say so. Anyone else who has solid patent claims would be an idiot to try and join a VP8 patent pool; their only hopes for monetizing those patents are to either 1) stay quiet, hope VP8 beats H.264, and *then* start collecting royalties, or 2) sell them off to whichever of Google and the H.264 patent pool offers more cash. Neither option has anything to do with MPEG-LA.
I think this is just smoke and mirrors and publicity. (Which isn't to say that it won't be effective for them.)
Posted Feb 12, 2011 5:24 UTC (Sat)
by gmaxwell (guest, #30048)
[Link] (4 responses)
Considering that, as well as the market considerations you brought up, the only conceivable use for the pool is to stifle the availability of webm. This seems to deeply contract the MPEG-LA letter of intent and DOJ analysis.
So I must believe that VP8 has them running scared, either it's already making an impact on their bottom line or they're convinced that it will. Otherwise why jump right in front of the antitrust train in this manner?
Posted Feb 12, 2011 7:20 UTC (Sat)
by njs (subscriber, #40338)
[Link] (3 responses)
Well, that's glib, but: intent is hard to prove, and this is a strategic battle over who gets to collect rent on the entire TV and movie *industries* going forward. (See also: Microsoft's throwing cash at the Xbox to get a foothold on television.) When you have stakes like that, big companies often decide that it's rational to take risks and see what happens. (See also: Google's obviously dumb decision to start making illegal copies of every book in the world... which, a few years later, is within epsilon of giving them a legal monopoly in the US over orphan written works, effectively a total change to how copyright law works that only applies to a single company.)
Posted Feb 12, 2011 7:51 UTC (Sat)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (2 responses)
When you see terms like 'antitrust laws' visualize other terms like '1984' and 'Department of Defense' floating around next to them. That way it will help give you a more accurate understanding what those laws are really for.
On top of that realize that patents they are government-sanctioned monopolies. The expressed purpose of them is to hand over control of technology to privileged companies. MPEG-LA and friends are just using the laws in the ways they are intended and there is no legal danger to them caused by their efforts to limit choice among consumers and the activities of competing companies.
Posted Feb 13, 2011 1:20 UTC (Sun)
by gmaxwell (guest, #30048)
[Link] (1 responses)
It's fine to patent a particular method for coding video it can be okay to assemble a collection of strictly necessary complementary patents require to code video in a particular way it's not lawful to assemble a cartel which anyone who wants to code video must deal with.
The CEO of MPEG-LA has made statements which run squarely into the danger zone here. "Virtually all codecs are based on patented technology, and many of the essential patents may be the same as those that are essential to AVC/H.264." ... //thats a nice codec you've got there, it would be a shame if anyone asserted patents against it//
Prior to engaging in this business MPEG-LA requested a review of their business plan by the DOJ, their letter outlined quite a few operating conditions which they appear to have since ignored, and the DOJ outlined a number of constraints which MPEG-LA has subsequently violated. In 1997 the DOJ was "not presently inclined to initiate antitrust enforcement action", but it certainly seems possible that the situation could change. (http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/busreview/215742.htm)
So, I think it's not clear cut at all that there is no legal danger in this approach. Even if they believe the risk to be small, taking it still requires an expenditure of resources to assess the risk and benefits, supporting my speculation that they are actually concerned about this, which was really the point that I was making.
Posted Feb 13, 2011 2:23 UTC (Sun)
by njs (subscriber, #40338)
[Link]
I didn't know about that history, and it's fascinating, thank you. However, I'm not sure what operating constraints you're referring to -- all I saw in that letter was a bunch of "well, this kind of thing could be a problem, but you are awesome and wrote your license not to do that, so, yay". Probably I'm just not familiar enough with their history. (Obviously the statements you refer to are questionable, but I don't see what they have to do with the contents of that letter.)
> Even if they believe the risk to be small, taking it still requires an expenditure of resources to assess the risk and benefits, supporting my speculation that they are actually concerned about this, which was really the point that I was making.
Totally agreed.
If only someone would tell the people who keep popping up to explain how anyone who takes WebM seriously is an idiot...
Posted Feb 12, 2011 15:52 UTC (Sat)
by cesarb (subscriber, #6266)
[Link] (2 responses)
From a press release at http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/meetings/daegu11/daegu_press..., they seem to be planning to release a "royalty free" video standard.
The site where I found this (http://www.robglidden.com/2011/02/mpeg-envisages-royalty-...) mentions, in another post (http://www.robglidden.com/2010/08/mpeg-moves-forward-with...), that what they mean by "royalty free" is "[t]he Patent Holder is prepared to grant a free of charge license to an unrestricted number of applicants on a worldwide, non-discriminatory basis and under other reasonable terms and conditions to make, use, and sell implementations of the above document."
And their motivation seems to be helping "video distribution over the Internet" (see http://www.robglidden.com/2010/04/mpeg-resolution-on-roya... for the full quote).
Posted Feb 13, 2011 16:07 UTC (Sun)
by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167)
[Link] (1 responses)
Standards work is only fulfilling if you are able to change the world. Preferably for the better, but sometimes it feels like making things worse would at least be an improvement on being ignored.
So when you tell a standards body "nobody uses these standards because..." that is really important feedback which they will try to react to. Right now the message is "patent encumbrance is a problem". They don't hear this from you or me, we're too small for the committee to notice. But Mozilla and Google are not too small.
Traditionally, outfits like MPEG felt that RAND was good enough. They visualised the implementer as a medium sized company, able to afford a lawyer, at least on a part time basis, to sort out the paperwork, and able to afford RAND license fees from their income doing... whatever they did. But in Free Software obviously the implementer is sometimes a 14 year old in his bedroom. He doesn't have a lawyer, and he can't afford any fees, and if he is important (even if only symbolically) then RAND is not good enough any more.
So participation in MPEG requires RAND. But they could easily change that, for a subcommittee, for the whole of MPEG or for the entire Joint Technical Committee (the ISO IEC collaboration that is responsible for MPEG) and it seems they are in the process of trying just that.
Notice that on its own this fixes very little, though it's an encouraging sign. It doesn't fix much because the patent terms apply only to those who contribute to the specific standard. Any patent troll will skip the "royalty free" work, and they then remain free to demand any terms they like. This problem affects the RAND standards too - a previously unknown company could pop up at any moment and announce that it has a relevant patent and it wants $5Bn in license fees or damages from say, Apple.
Posted Feb 15, 2011 3:34 UTC (Tue)
by butlerm (subscriber, #13312)
[Link]
Patents are evil - there is not much you can do about that except repeal the patent laws.
MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
Wol
MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
patents make GIF the most safe for use today
patents make GIF the most safe for use today
patents make GIF the most safe for use today
patents make GIF the most safe for use today
MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
the number of GIF was higher than the number of PNG, so no PNG hasn't been a huge success.
There's the same issue for VP8, the switch is costless only if your users can read VP8..
MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
PNG has been a HUGE succes: nowadays nobody fears GIF lawsuits anymore.
Might not that have more to do with the LZW patent expiring in 2003?
MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
Well, no, if you're going to post a correction for your original figure, how about posting the correction for your original figure?
MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
Re: Bananas
MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
If only that, the VP8 codec gives Google some bargaining leverage when they are extorted by the MPEG LA cartel, I suppose. That hypothetical switch (even if impractical to activate) might mean a big % discount on "patent" fees.
Leverage
MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
Video is widespread
Video is widespread
Video is widespread
Sites that rely on Flash will support WebM regardless of the underlying browser. Saying there is a lot of Flash out there is saying it will be easy to move from H.264 to WebM.
Video is widespread
MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
It's not quite as hard for Google to switch youtube as you think
It's not quite as hard for Google to switch youtube as you think
It's not quite as hard for Google to switch youtube as you think
It's not quite as hard for Google to switch youtube as you think
MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
> companies that create them don't use them for anything, do not license
> them for anything, and have no benefit from them in any measurable way
> except for one... When the accounts come around they count as assets and
> they can use them to as bullet points to make them seem more innovative.
> That is probably 90-95% of all patents.
>
> This is harmless.
MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
Wol
MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
In other news - "MPEG envisages royalty-free MPEG video coding standard"
In other news - "MPEG envisages royalty-free MPEG video coding standard"
This problem affects the RAND standards too - a previously unknown company could pop up at any moment and announce that it has a relevant patent and it wants $5Bn in license fees or damages from say, Apple.
In other news - "MPEG envisages royalty-free MPEG video coding standard"