User: Password:
Subscribe / Log in / New account

This is a badly researched article.

This is a badly researched article.

Posted May 26, 2010 2:05 UTC (Wed) by sfeam (subscriber, #2841)
In reply to: This is a badly researched article. by DonDiego
Parent article: Swift and predictable reactions to WebM

I have to agree with this criticism of the article. It presents misleading or incorrect summaries of the primary sources. While the article serves a useful function in providing links to them, it does a disservice in summarizing them badly before moving on to a "follow the money" argument rather than a technical overview.

It would have been more useful, for example, to approach the issue of patent avoidance from a different angle. Jason's analysis points out several things notably missing from VP8, first among them B-frames, that one would expect could be the starting point for further improvements. But if they were deliberately omitted to avoid patent claims, then this avenue of improvement may be closed off. This issue was raised in several of the primary sources linked to in the article, but could have been brought out more clearly in the article itself.

(Log in to post comments)


Posted May 26, 2010 6:19 UTC (Wed) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link]

first among them B-frames,

Didn't B-frames already appear in MPEG-1? Any patent on the idea has expired or will expire soon (drafts of the MPEG-1 spec were published already in 1990 claims this).


Posted May 26, 2010 11:16 UTC (Wed) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link]

B-frames may have been present in MPEG-1, but that does not mean the patents have expired, in every country, and that there are no other patents that continue the earlier patents, or that are worded differently enough to be considered separate patents, and hence filed later, but similarly enough to still cover the same subject matter.

This is not a badly researched article.

Posted May 26, 2010 10:08 UTC (Wed) by bawjaws (guest, #56952) [Link]

I'd read all the articles before I read this and didn't spot any that were poorly summarized, even though I personally would have added some different context to some of them.

This article has more info on what design decisions in VP8 are likely to have been impacted by patents:

I note that the original Dark Shikari article has been updated multiple times by the author (search for "update:"). The initial burst of updates where to add more damning evidence of On2/Google incompetence in not doing things the obviously better MPEG-approved way, but the later ones acknowledge that the decisions made more sense in light of patent issues he was unaware of, or of features of the VP8 encoder that he didn't fully understand.

Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds