The WebM Community Cross-License Initiative launches [LWN.net]

The WebM video format project has announced the WebM Community Cross-License Initiative, a sort of patent pool for WebM users. "CCL members are joining this effort because they realize that the entire web ecosystem--users, developers, publishers, and device makers--benefits from a high-quality, community developed, open-source media format. We look forward to working with CCL members and the web standards community to advance WebM's role in HTML5 video." There are 17 members at the outset.

to post comments

Motorola and its affiliated entities are notably absent

Posted Apr 25, 2011 18:48 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] (3 responses)

Apart from the fact that the group of 17 members is highly unlikely to collectively own all patents that are essential to WebM, I'm surprised that Motorola, a major Android adopter, is absent. A Motorola subsidiary named General Instrument Corporation is suing other companies over various codec-related patents, including (but not necessarily limited to) U.S. patents no. 5,949,948, 6,356,708, 7,310,374, 7,310,375, 7,310,376, and 7,529,465.

Motorola and its affiliated entities are notably absent

Posted Apr 25, 2011 19:01 UTC (Mon) by Trelane (guest, #56877) [Link]

> I'm surprised that Motorola, a major Android adopter, is absent.

Interesting. Nice catch. They're not a "supporter" of WebM either:
http://www.webmproject.org/about/supporters/

Thanks!

Motorola and its affiliated entities are notably absent

Posted Apr 25, 2011 22:06 UTC (Mon) by david.a.wheeler (subscriber, #72896) [Link] (1 responses)

You say that, "Apart from the fact that the group of 17 members is highly unlikely to collectively own all patents that are essential to WebM...".

Um, evidence required. It's not at all clear that there are ANY other patents essential to WebM, other than the ones that Google bought and released. Yes, MPEG-LA claims that there are some, but they are NOT a disinterested party; their entire business model depends on extortion of funds for the use of ANY format. I haven't seen a strong analysis showing specific patents (with patent numbers), why WebM necessarily infringes, *and* why those patents will stand in court.

Motorola and its affiliated entities are notably absent

Posted Apr 26, 2011 4:23 UTC (Tue) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]

I would agree with you that evidence is required for MPEG LA to collect royalties. The statement their spokesman made to The H Online suggests they're working on just that.

I said "highly unlikely" because the realm of codecs is a terrible patent thicket. Also, in terms of credibility, Google originally claimed that its own patents were sufficient and now presents a 17-member pool, which is in and of itself already a bit inconsistent with the original claim.

"did I fire six patents, or only five?"

Posted Apr 25, 2011 20:09 UTC (Mon) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] (3 responses)

Interesting twist on the TERM SHEET page: "Persons joining the WebM Community Cross-License will not be required to identify Covered Patents."

"did I fire six patents, or only five?"

Posted Apr 25, 2011 23:20 UTC (Mon) by cesarb (subscriber, #6266) [Link] (2 responses)

I can think of at least three reasons for that.

One reason would be to hide that there are no "Covered Patents". If what On2 always claimed about all the patents on VP8 belonging to them is true, then the only member on that list which would have any "Covered Patents" would be Google (and, by the way, is there a list of Google's VP8 patents anywhere?).

Another reason would be to hide that there *are* "Covered Patents". From what I have heard, On2 always claimed that all the VP8 patents belong to them; if one of the other members has a patent which might apply to VP8, that member might want to hide the fact so as to not "rock the boat".

And another reason, probably the real one, would be that a patent *might* apply to VP8, or it *might not*. Not having to identify the patents allows them to remain in that superposition of states indefinitely, while having to identify the patents would force them to collapse prematurely into whether it is a "Covered Patent" or not.

"did I fire six patents, or only five?"

Posted Apr 26, 2011 5:33 UTC (Tue) by gmaxwell (guest, #30048) [Link] (1 responses)

I think you're reading too much into it. Actually identifying them takes work, and it's work which must be done reasonably well and for the purpose of the agreement there is absolutely no reason or advantage in actually doing that work since the goal is to make all the patents liberally available.

For many (probably most) of the parties there aren't any patents which would apply, and thats okay. The covenant is still reduces exposure even where its empty, and the lack of specific details leaves live for an aggressor maximally hard.

"did I fire six patents, or only five?"

Posted Apr 27, 2011 10:37 UTC (Wed) by Simetrical (guest, #53439) [Link]

. . . whereas in contrast, MPEG LA requires parties to disclose the patents, because otherwise they don't know what royalties you should be getting (if any). But for instance, the W3C also doesn't require members to disclose the patents they license according to its patent policy. They have no reason to do so.

MPEG LA spokesman confirms that they received VP8 patent submissions, now evaluating them

Posted Apr 25, 2011 20:27 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]

The H Online also reports on this and says:

The creation of the CCL comes just over one month after the MPEG-LA closed the initial submissions phase in the process of creating a royalty-bearing patent pool for WebM. The MPEG-LA's Tom O'Reilly confirmed to The H that the process is continuing and that the organisation had received submissions to its proposed pool.

The WebM Community Cross-License Initiative launches

Posted Apr 26, 2011 7:40 UTC (Tue) by juliank (guest, #45896) [Link] (2 responses)

Only personal use is protected for non-members. So it seems that commercial use of WebM, or any distribution of WebM, requires joining the CCL.

The WebM Community Cross-License Initiative launches

Posted Apr 26, 2011 10:41 UTC (Tue) by bawjaws (guest, #56952) [Link] (1 responses)

Is this some kind of "patent-left" (as in "copyleft"), where you get protection if you in turn promise non-aggression? Yet it seems only to apply to 3rd party patents as Google has already freely promised the VP8 patents as far as I'm aware.

I'm not sure I really understand the point. The only obvious benefit is that companies can legally bind themselves to prevent future use of their patents against WebM if they go bust or get taken over.

The WebM Community Cross-License Initiative launches

Posted Apr 26, 2011 10:52 UTC (Tue) by juliank (guest, #45896) [Link]

It's about 3rd party patents possibly applying to WebM. If they apply, they are not part of the WebM patent grant, and thus not permitted for commercial use, or distribution to non-members.

The WebM Community Cross-License Initiative launches

Posted Apr 26, 2011 7:43 UTC (Tue) by rilder (guest, #59804) [Link] (4 responses)

These 'patent' pools *don't* work. There have been several instances of members of people cross suing each other. This is like fixing something broken by repeatedly patching it. In this case, the broken one is the legal system and that needs to be fixed before it worsens.

The WebM Community Cross-License Initiative launches

Posted Apr 26, 2011 9:37 UTC (Tue) by Hausvib6 (guest, #70606) [Link]

Well, it might not work in the long term but as long as it can make people feel safer by joining a patent pool...
--
Fixing the system will cause some lawyers to lose their jobs, lawmakers won't do anything that cause jobs loss.

Please think of the rich lawyers.

The WebM Community Cross-License Initiative launches

Posted Apr 26, 2011 16:29 UTC (Tue) by gmaxwell (guest, #30048) [Link] (2 responses)

[Citation needed]

In multimedia patents, it's common for non-pool members to sue people. But not pool participants. E.g. There are now several cases against H.264 users, and there has been litigation against MP3 users in the past, but I'm not aware of any cases where the plaintiff was a pool member.

Recently in MPEG-LA v. Alcatel (a case where a pool member merged with a non-pool member and spun off the non-pool patents to a subsidiary to avoid the pool obligations) the courts even denied a company the ability to shield themselves from the pool obligations using incorporation stunts.

The WebM Community Cross-License Initiative launches

Posted Apr 26, 2011 20:36 UTC (Tue) by rilder (guest, #59804) [Link] (1 responses)

I am not aware of multimedia specific patent pool. However, the recent Google Oracle Java case is good counter example. Both Google and Oracle have been part of OIN, but that did not stop Oracle from suing Google.

The WebM Community Cross-License Initiative launches

Posted Apr 27, 2011 15:53 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]

That's because OIN has a very narrow definition, preventing people from suing each other over the Linux kernel and a specified set of common packages (including gcc). Java, however, isn't on the OIN list, which is why Oracle could sue Google.

Microsoft isn't a member (yet?)

Posted Apr 27, 2011 10:55 UTC (Wed) by Simetrical (guest, #53439) [Link] (3 responses)

Microsoft said (emphasis added):

Ultimately, Microsoft remains agnostic in terms of HTML5 video as long as there is clarity on the intellectual property issues. To make it clear that we are fully willing to participate in a resolution of these issues, Microsoft is willing to commit that we will never assert any patents on VP8 if Google will make a commitment to indemnify us and all other developers and customers who use VP8 in the future. We would only ask that we be able to use those patent rights if we are sued first by somebody else. If Google would prefer a patent pool approach, then we would also agree to join a patent pool for VP8 on reasonable licensing terms so long as Google joins the pool and is able to include all other major providers of playback software and devices.

But Microsoft is not on the list of members. Does Microsoft feel that the pool doesn't include "all other major providers of playback software and devices", and if so, who's missing? (Or to give them the benefit of the doubt, perhaps they're considering whether to join and haven't yet made a final decision.)

Microsoft isn't a member (yet?)

Posted Apr 27, 2011 16:00 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] (2 responses)

That's a rather one-sided statement from Microsoft. It's saying that it will promise never to assert any of its (nonexistent) patents against WebM/VP8, but only if Google pledges to indemnify everyone, meaning that if anyone wins a patent judgment against anyone for VP8, Google pays. So of course Microsoft would be happy to take a cost-free action in exchange for a risky action by Google.

Google isn't going to promise to indemnify everyone, because that puts real stockholder money on the line to pay whatever some idiot Texas jury decides (sorry to Texans in the audience, but Texas is infamous for its patent courts, which is why all plaintiffs try to sue for patent infringement in Texas).

Microsoft isn't a member (yet?)

Posted Apr 27, 2011 22:09 UTC (Wed) by Simetrical (guest, #53439) [Link] (1 responses)

I was asking about the part I bolded, where Microsoft said it would join a patent pool if Google formed one. That's independent from the indemnification part, as I read it.

Microsoft isn't a member (yet?)

Posted Apr 27, 2011 23:45 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]

No, they are also requiring that Google include "all other major providers of playback software and devices", meaning Apple, Motorola, Sony and who knows who else. They seem to be saying that they'd be the very last to join such a pool.