User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

VP8 and MPEG LA (WebM blog)

VP8 and MPEG LA (WebM blog)

Posted Mar 8, 2013 7:53 UTC (Fri) by epa (subscriber, #39769)
In reply to: VP8 and MPEG LA (WebM blog) by drag
Parent article: VP8 and MPEG LA (WebM blog)

Google could release evidence showing that certain MPEG-LA patents are almost certain to be invalidated if tested in court. But MPEG-LA would never acknowledge this; they'd still mumble things in public about forming a patent pool and so on. Not everyone has a sharp enough in-house legal team to weigh up the true threat; most would look at the situation, see that there is some legal uncertainty, and decide to play it safe. Remember what the U in FUD stands for. The way they resolved it is much better.


(Log in to post comments)

VP8 and MPEG LA (WebM blog)

Posted Mar 8, 2013 9:03 UTC (Fri) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]

What some people seem to have missed is ...

Patent APPLICATIONS are pretty much rubber-stamped by the USPTO.

Patent RE-EXAMS are much stricter - a significant number of patents are invalidated by a re-exam.

And it wouldn't cost Google much to swamp the USPTO with re-exam requests that are on-point, pertinent, and capable of doing much much much damage to the patents.

It is NOT normal practice to invalidate patents in court. Even in a court case it is far more effective, and cheaper, to refer the patents back to the USPTO for re-exam. Only if that route fails do you really want to get into a court battle over validity.

Cheers,
Wol

VP8 and MPEG LA (WebM blog)

Posted Mar 8, 2013 9:26 UTC (Fri) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]

I thought that sending patents back for re-examination was best avoided because if the USPTO re-examines it and finds it still valid, that counts as evidence in any subsequent court case.

VP8 and MPEG LA (WebM blog)

Posted Mar 8, 2013 13:16 UTC (Fri) by bawjaws (guest, #56952) [Link]

The MPEG-LA patents are usually very specific to what's in their standards and therefore (comparatively) solid patents that would be hard to invalidate.

Where it gets muddy is when they claim that their stack of patents apply to other codecs. That seems to involve courthouses and juries learning about the ins-and-outs of video compression, therefore high cost and risk.

Why would it be hard?

Posted Mar 8, 2013 16:05 UTC (Fri) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]

Just because the patent is rock-solid tied to the standard, doesn't mean there isn't a load of prior art out there.

One only has to look at the gif patent (I think I've got the right one) where the USPTO granted two different patents on THE SAME algorithm. All Google has to do (and the tighter the patent is, the easier this is to do) is find a prior implementation of the same technique, and BOOM, the patent is gone.

I can't see it being hard for Google to find prior art. After all, they are the masters of search ... :-)

Cheers,
Wol

Why would it be hard?

Posted Mar 8, 2013 21:08 UTC (Fri) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link]

land war with russia

fight with google over something involving searching....


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