Slashdot Mirror
MPEG-LA Considering Patent Pool For VP8/WebM
An anonymous reader writes "Well, that didn't take long. Larry Horn, CEO of MPEG-LA, the consortium that controls the AVC/H.264 video standard, says the group is looking at creating a patent pool license for VP8 and WebM, Google's new open source, royalty-free HTML5 video format... So much for a Web video standard unencumbered by patent issues." We talked about VP8/WebM a couple of days ago when Google open sourced it. Reader Stoobalou points out another late-night email from Steve Jobs, who was asked to comment on VP8 vs. H.264. Jobs laconically sent a pointer to the technical analysis we linked before, where the poster says "VP8 copies way too much from H.264 for anyone sane to be comfortable with it, no matter whose word is behind the claim of being patent-free."
Sounds good: Let's get the patents that MPEG-LA claims might affect VP8 out in the open. Let's get an explicit listing of exactly where they think it infringes. And then we'll fix it.
This as opposed to Microsoft's approach to everything else, and Apple's approach so-far, of obliquely threatening that someone may someday find something that vaguely infringes some potential patent by some unknown party.
Except for the fact that Google has already placed themselves in the crosshairs by using VP8/WebM themselves. Are you worth more than Google? Didn't think so.
Game! - Where the stick is mightier than the sword!
They don't ensure any such thing. They ensure their patent pool holders won't sue you over H.264; but buying a licence from them does not mean they'll protect you against others suing you over H.264.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
MPEG-LA ensures that H.264 and you are free from any patent violations.
Free of any patent violations of any patent in their pool. Once you pay for their protection. If someone outside the pool asserts a patent, sorry, that's not covered. You're only paying Mr. Guido and his organization for protection. If Mr. Vinny decides to burn down your warehouse because you didn't pay HIM, well, that's just unfortunate.
This is where patent pool organizations are more worthless than real organized crime. In the real protection racket, if some shopkeeper is paying you off on schedule, you prevent other punks from trying to horn in on your territory. In a patent pool, once you've got the developer's license money, if someone else declares that they want in on the action, you can either ignore them and let your licensee deal with it, or invite the new patent holder into the pool and jack up the rates to make sure he gets his cut of the racket too.
so it's a patent bomb waiting to happen and any company that uses it takes risks.
Don't kid yourself. In computers, everything is either patented or is about to be. If you do anything creative you're exposed. Suck up the risk and proceed, or shut yourself in your room and accomplish nothing.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
You know, On2 has been around a while now in the video codec game. I wonder how many patents they hold that MPEG-LA are violating with their video codecs. If MPEG-LA goes up against Google/On2 chances are they'll retaliate with patents that MPEG-LA is infringing upon.
I'm surprised no one has thought of this (at least all the news posts I've seen), that MPEG-LA may be opening themselves up to some pretty serious patent retaliation.
You're confusing patent and copyright. The last of the h.264 patents should expire around 2025. Approximately 15 years from now.
I'm very much hoping (and it's very realistic to expect) that I will be alive at that point, and so will my parents. If you got a kitten today, it might not make it, though. Sorry.
Given my daughter's current age, it's likely that any potential grandchildren wouldn't even be born by then.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
They don't need to go after Google first. Google has explicitly stated they don't ensure you don't get patent litigation, so you are on your own to fight it.
This has been the tactic forever - attack the small guy first, so you get backing up to attack the big guys later if you want to.
Only really in America...oh, and Germany as of recently. Damnit, I thought we'd kept those silly "software patent" ideas on the other side of the Atlantic.
It is great how patents are getting so horrendously abused, and yet the people holding them always make it out like a good thing. "Yeah, we've got patents, but we're nice enough to license them to you, and if you sign up then we promise to never sue you (but we'll keep quiet about any other patents that may be floating around)".
The last of the h.264 patents should expire around 2025. Approximately 15 years from now.
That does, of course, assume no-one manages to successfully lobby for increased patent terms any time during the next 15 years.
The world would, of course, be a lot better off if ignoring suspected patent infringement until it appears like there might be a lot of money to be made from suing the suspected infringer were grounds for dismissal of the suit.
I try to avoid "See I Told Ya So" types of posts, but in this case SCNR: WebM/VP8 patent risk for software developers" (and I previously made that suggestion on my blog in this post on video codecs)
I'm all for open-sourcing useful program code but the question here is whether it's fair for Google to expose an entire community, including the commercial adopters of open source, to this kind of risk. The situation surrounding Android serves as a warning. Google is unfortunately in favor of software patents and doesn't do anything against the problem. They're entitled to their patent strategy. But it's important that third parties don't run into patent problems in reliance upon Google's vague promises.
If Google really believed that WebM/VP8 was safe from a patent perspective, then why in the world don't its WebM license terms contain a hold-harmless clause or at least some basic indemnification (less value than holding harmless but better than nothing) in favor of developers adopting it?
People should think twice (at least!) before relying on any vague promises and they should also consider that Google isn't the patent powerhouse that could start a "pissing contest" with the major contributors to the MPEG LA pool. I explained Google's limits in that regard in this recent slashdot comment, The idea of Google countersuing isn't realistic.
Without a guarantee of return, Monty and other Xiph.Org contributors invented the Vorbis audio codec, which is competitive with AAC at all but the lowest bitrates.
You are right about the 15 years.
Anyhow, h.264 will be about as useful 15 years from now as Intel Indeo is right now.
Patents on nineteenth century machines kind of made sense, because they might have helped moving some industries forward. Of course, patents did last a short amount of time compared to the usefulness of the invention. Right now we are still using combustion engines, and for the most part of the time they had no patents.
Patents in software, right now, cover a lot more than the lifetime of the invention. That way, they are useless to the general public.
It's not that you and your grandchildren will be dead, it's that patents will expire long after the technology becomes obsolete.
Yet they trust the MPEG-LA promise that after 2015, they'll continue to allow H.264 for non-commercial use for free. Suuuuuuuuuure.
I would say the same about MPEG LA: don't trust vague promises. However, concerning future increases of royalty fees, they've made a very clear statement concerning the maximum level of increase, which is discussed in this article.
Apart from that, the risk if MPEG LA started to charge for non-commercial use of H.264 after 2015 is that one has to pay or has to cease using it for such purposes, while the WebM/VP8 patent problem could affect every adopter of that technology anytime now and have some really nasty consequences (cease-and-desist, injunctions, damages/backroyalties, future royalties).
Google is not stupid. They have a lot of smart people working there. They also, as with any company, have a plenty large legal staff. Given that they bought On2 some time ago, this is clearly not a spur-of-the-moment kind of decision. They've considered this. Well that tells me that they have come to the conclusion that either VP8 doesn't infringe, or that they have the resources to fight it.
Something else to remember is that while it might infringe on some patents, perhaps those patents are invalid, perhaps there's prior art. Now, who would be able to find that sort of thing the best? Probably someone who had access to a lot of information and was good at data mining. Well, that would be Google. They are the kings of data mining, they have access to more information than, well, probalby anyone except maybe the NSA.
So perhaps they looked at the MPEG-LA patents and said "Well, all of the ones VP8 might infringe on have prior art out there, so we can get them shot down."
Whatever the case, I bet this was a reasoned, thought out, move. They didn't just say "Hey, let's open source some shit for fun!" Also please note the coincides with their Google TV stuff. Google wants in to the video distribution market in a big way, they've been working on this and planning.
Now that doesn't mean they'd be successful. This could all get fought in court, Google could lose, etc. However they have the resources, in terms of money, brainpower, technology, and so on to fight. I'm guessing they think they can win.
Apple is just scared because they were starting to believe they were going to become the kings of all media, that everything would have to come through their devices, and Google is now threatening to take that away.
(Warning: Contains far more than usual amount of fuming.)
There's only one chance to make a first impression. MPEG-LA just used theirs, in relation to the WebM. And good grief, what did that reveal.
The MPEG-LA wants patent-encumbered video format as a web standard. That'd allow them to rake in the money. The whole "H.264 is free of charge for time being" thing is a giant big smokescreen. Google is already allowing VP8 to be freely used in perpetuity; in light of that, what other purpose than long-term plan to start charging for the whole thing would MPEG-LA's patent pool have than to start charging for the stuff after all? If they really wanted a free standard, they'd just leave Google alone.
This attitude alone, in my opinion, weighs far more than any technological merit H.264 has. MPEG-LA not in to produce any sort of amicable, altruistic solution to the whole thing. They're not interested in creating a standard that could be used royalty-free. Take any further tokens of niceness with a grain of salt.
Pardon me for getting a little bit cynical here: Part of me wants to say "December 31, 2015 is the day people will start paying for H.264 Internet production and streaming", but since the chance that we'll ever see a HTML5 video standard due to bullshit just like this is close to zero, it's all academic anyway and nothing remarkable will ever happen.
Yes, but it does show the amount of protection that the MPEG-LA license afforded. Absolutely none. Microsoft still had to go pay to defend itself from litigation, it still lost the litigation, and if it wouldn't have been for a judge that was willing to overturn a jury verdict Microsoft would still have been on the hook for millions of dollars.
The MPEG-LA license did absolutely nothing to protect against patent claims from parties outside the pool.
The key is whether they are too similar on the specific claims. Everything surrounding the claims section (which is a small fraction of the patent) is just fluff or description that has no bearing on the legality of it.
For example, MP3, if taking a broad view, is very similar to H.264. They do the same thing (compress media), and share most of the same concepts. In fact they are both rather similar to ZIP files. Yet on the very specifics of MP3's patent claims and H.264, they are quite different.
The same can be true of VP8, it's not the generalities that matter, it's the specific. They can be 99% identical, but if that 1% is all the specific claims of the patent, then it doesn't infringe.
This also bites a lot of people the other way - two technologies can be extremely different, yet if the patent's specific claims apply, then it doesn't matter it's still infringing.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller