Slashdot Mirror
MPEG LA Attempts To Start VP8 Patent Pool
Confirming speculation from last year, an anonymous reader tips news that MPEG LA has posted a request for information about establishing a patent pool for the 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."
Ultimately evil, this will at least provide a list of patents that threaten VP8.
Corporations collaborate to create a new wall to bar entry into the video codec arena. A surprisingly number of obvious implementations will be covered by at least one of the VP8 patents, and the judges chosen to try the cases will not have a clue how either video codecs or patents work.
OK, so I'm sure everyone knows VP8 is the video codec for WebM.
So, this is essentially a step in killing WebM's major advantage over H.264? That advantage being a royalty-free codec...
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
There have been previous threats about Theora, but nothing happened. This could be FUD bluff too.
MPEG LA has over 1,000 patents which it says are needed for an implementation of MPEG H.264.
Most current efforts around software patents talk about quality and bad patents, but none of those efforts will make a dent on a thicket of 1,000 patents. It's unlikely they're all obvious or that prior art exists for them.
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/MPEG_LA
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/WebM_and_VP8
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Audio-video_patents
There was a time when the problem was killer patents - RSA, public key encryption, gif - but today the problem is always thickets. Raising quality won't solve the problem, we need to clearly exclude software from patentability.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
You don't seem to understand opensource and how this violates the spirit of opensource.
If you think you have a patent to use against Vp8, signing it over to MPEG-LA is the last thing you should do. Look at their other pools, the few good patents are swamped by the dross. The earnings from your patents get shared with troll patents of no value.
Even the CEO of MPEG-LA HAS A SEPARATE patent pool all for himself largely undiluted? His MobileMedia Ideas LLC, is like a patent pool, only he's bought patents and controls the pool.
If he won't throw those patents into the diluted pool, neither should you.
http://www.osnews.com/story/23258/MPEG-LA-owned_Patent_Troll_Sues_Smartphone_Makers
At least now we can start preferring quality (H264) over ?. The user wins.
Businesses don't care about open source. They care about patent liability. Using a codec that can get you sued isn't in their best interests.
The decision will be made by the distros.
Patent encumberedness is what makes your legal department tell you a package can't be in the distro.
Liking openness is a lovely discussion for Sunday afternoons.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Nice shiny-looking coded you've got there. It would be a pity of something bad were to happen to it. You know that you won't have to worry about any of these legal threats if you just license h.264, and it's just a small fee. For a short time, we've even waived the fee, just for you!
I know what MPLA is doing is technically legal, but spiritually it's corrupt. The patent system is broken, from many directions. For the other way around, my employer is routinely trolled by NPEs.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
you either do not write codecs
or
you do not expect to be caught writing a H.264 codec.
MPEG-LA is the patent troll/layer firm that wants to collect $ for Software Patents on mathematical equations that compresses bits of information that happens to be a video. If it can scare/threaten/sue people into buying a license to create/use/distribute a H.264 codec then they will have accomplish their goal.
This WebM patent pool is a FUD tactic similar to MS' patents on Linux. You are free to create a WebM codec as much as you are free to write a Linux derivative. not so with H.264.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
If I were evil, an evil of the variety that only lawyers can hope to attain, I would very much enjoy making THAT announcement. "The Googlers think they're getting around us with this? We'll stick it to the googles! We have ways......"
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Dunno if you've ever actually read any MPEG specifications (I have), but the "open" standards process is not the best deal on the planet. Remember 802.11 "Draft N" and it's 5-year lifespan? That was a result of the standards process being held hostage by every vendor wanting to include their own pet features and patents. Constructing a standard around all those corporate filibusters took far too long, and the resulting standard is bloated and insanely complex. MPEG-4 and related (H.264 such) are stupidly huge standards that support all sorts of arcane features that nobody will ever use except as a) a marketing slide, and b) a patent to toss into the ring.
As per your claim that "anyone" can contribute to the MPEG standards, have you looked at the list of people involved? Every one of them comes from a major vendor or "research" company (or their university proxies) and is paying stupid sums of money to join and attend (meets move all over the planet). The reality is that if I had an idea I wanted to propose for an MPEG standard, hell will freeze over long before I even get a hearing let alone add the feature. Google is far more likely to pay attention to their (codec-savvy) users' comments.
I'll take unencumbered codecs with a single primary party keeping control over the standard every time.
GStreamer - The only way to stream!
Patents today are massively abused. Originally developed for the purpose of encourage innovation. tnhey actually squelch it. Many innovations improve on a previous idea. Patents make it difficult for independant developers to improve on and rrefine an idea. Patents have been turned in to a way to squelch independant innovation and create monopoliies, and stagnant technologies which are difficult to improve on or use independantly. Patent holders often charge licence fees so high they preclude independant use or refinement, make the technology too costly to deploy and limit its use, or they do not licence the technlogy at all, gaining a monopoly on ideas.
Both copyright law and patent law badly need reform. Software patents need to be prohibited altogether. Other patents need to be required to be licenced to other persons, for a reasonable percentage of profits (if there is no revenue there would be no fee). Copyrighted works no longer under production or distribution will also be made public domain immediately and must comply with the same reasonable licencing requirements.
You forgot a choice: they do write codecs, and believe that paying a small fee to the people who came up with the algorithms is a whole lot easier and smarter than spending many years (like the patent holders did) trying to come up with other algorithms.
I grok wrongness.
You are free to create a WebM codec as much as you are free to write a Linux derivative. not so with H.264.
I am "free" to implement either codec, no one can stop me. The issue is that with H.264 if I plan to distribute that implementation I must pay license fees to the patent holders.
Both codecs are free in different ways. WebM is gratis; free as in beer; it costs no money to implement and distribute, but not to contribute to. H.264 is libre; free as in speech; you must pay to distribute an implementation, but anyone can contribute to the spec.
Like I said, I think the ability to contribute the codec vastly outweighs the ability to implement it for free.
Hmm ... I challenge you to provide a feature to this "open" spec and see where that gets you. I'm guessing you won't be able to get past their spam filter. When they mean that anyone can contribute, they really mean "anyone with relevant patents" or "anyone with industry clout". To the everyday coder, this spec is just as closed as the Google spec.
H.264 is "open" like the Microsoft Open Office XML standard is open. There are bear-traps that can prevent you from using it successfully. In the case of OOXML, one of those bear-traps is requiring your documents to interpret "Proprietary Microsoft Binary Blobs".
H.264, being patent protected, means that the patent holder reserve the right to say, "Go pound sand" when your five-year license expires.
WebM is controlled by Google.... but Google has effectively put its patents into the public domain so that ANYBODY can implement a WebM/VP8 video codec.
Since when does the MPEG LA have the legal right to form a pool around the patents?
You forgot a choice: they do write codecs, and believe that paying a small fee to the people who came up with the algorithms is a whole lot easier and smarter than spending many years (like the patent holders did) trying to come up with other algorithms.
Way to miss the point about having a stranglehold on mathematical information. I bet you never met a fascist you didn't like and make apologies for.
They seem to be using their codec to get others to participate, which seems better than waiting to get sued, but that's for their own benefit. Do the MPEG LA want everyone else to do all their legal work for them in the guise of "participation"?
If you read the license of WebM Google already has a patent clause... For some reason in all the hurray that is something that is overlooked. There is also the false notion that Google would protect users against patent cases, that isn't the fact. Read the Additional IP Rights Grant (Patents) part of the license.
http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/
From the moment anyone (doesn't need to the MPEG LA) somebody has a clear case of infringement you will loose all the rights and you have the same story as with h.264 as you will need to license... . I said it from the beginning and I say it again, this has nothing to do with patents, money (it is Google) or "don't do evil" (china) and in the long run the winner will be Adobe/Flash... .
> MPEG-LA is risking a "slander of title" claim
Has that been used in the past against a patent holder??
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Since anyone can, will and have sued anyone and anything else over anything, it seems that you are proposing that noone ever user codecs?
There is also the fact that, coming from a position of relative weakness, and explicitly disclaiming any patents that need to be licensed in order to independently implement the spec, Google can write whatever spec they want; but they don't have very much leverage, which sharply limits their ability to piss people off.
Neither they nor their users have an interest in an incompetent spec, so interests are aligned there; and were Google to somehow come up with a way to bake anticompetitive evil of some flavor into the spec, there would be absolutely nothing stopping everyone else from shrugging and continuing to use "WebM without 'mustdecodeat50%ofrealtimeunlessuserisrunningchrome' enabled"... They don't have any "hook IP" by which to enforce conformity.
It remains to be seen whether they will gain enough traction for WebM to be relevant; but their unilateral spec is a long way from being dangerous at present...
H.264 is "open" like the Microsoft Open Office XML standard is open. There are bear-traps that can prevent you from using it successfully. In the case of OOXML, one of those bear-traps is requiring your documents to interpret "Proprietary Microsoft Binary Blobs".
I'd call your comparison quite pathetic. h.264 is actually a useful standard. It provides a very, very clear specification for its compression and decompression, unlike WebM. It is widely used with a huge range of hardware implementations. It gives much better compression than WebM will ever have. It was created with the intention to produce the best possible video compression. From a technical point of view it is clearly superior to WebM, and Google is right now trying to force a sub-standard video compression onto the whole world. The OOXML standard, on the other hand, is ten times the size of the h.264 standard. It is full of bugs, unclear, unspecified in many areas, there are no implementations now and there will likely never be implementations (since Microsoft doesn't have any products that match this standard), and all these huge disadvantages are totally intentional.
This is good... no, its GREAT!
This will produce a clear and decisive list of patents that must be challenged by VP8.
The alternative is to produce an eco-system around VP8 which will be shattered and hung out to dry in 10 years time.
-Tim
The WebM patent pool is not just FUD. One of x.264's developers wrote a technical analysis of WebM and determined that WebM was similar enough to H.264 to step on its patents.
I've read article 377 that you linked. But I've also read replies to that article, and it appears that the places where VP8 is allegedly inferior to H.264 main profile are precisely the places where On2 worked around a specific patent. That's why VP8 uses 4x4 and 16x16 blocks in a lot of places, as a lot of patents appear to be specific to the 8x8 transform size.
Dear Google,
Please wait patiently until March 18, 2011, and then confront this patent pool head on. We really need some closure on whether WebM is really going to be unencumbered by patents. The swift progress of internet innovation will be forever in your debt if you can definitively clear this up. Thank you.
Has [a claim of slander of title] been used in the past against a patent holder??
Have you asked Google? The first result is a Groklaw article from the SCO v. IBM era. It cites an article on FindLaw; the link there is broken, but I found it with Google. Slander of title is the malicious publication of false and disparaging words by which special damages were sustained, causing a plaintiff who owns the property disparaged to lose a sale. FindLaw's article cites Prosser and Keeton (apparently Prosser and Keeton on Torts) that patents or other intangible property may be the subject of such a claim.
The WebM patent pool is not just FUD. One of x.264's developers wrote a technical analysis of WebM and determined that WebM was similar enough to H.264 to step on its patents.
That would be the "fear" part of FUD. FUD = Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. The fear can be real and justifiable and still meet that definition, you illiterate fuck who needs obvious things explained.
Pay us so that we can "protect" you.
You are free to create a WebM codec as much as you are free to write a Linux derivative
Actually, I'm not entirely sure about this. The patent license appears to only apply to:
the contents of this implementation of VP8
So, unless I'm misreading it, you are only granted a license to use the patents with libvpx and derivatives, not with independent implementations. The implementation in ffmpeg (which is faster and smaller) would not be covered. Maybe someone can persuade Google to clarify this.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
No, he said he'd be very surprised if it didn't step on patents because it's similar to parts of H.264 that are patented. He didn't, however, cite any specific patents, nor the claims in them that are violated by specific algorithms in VP8. Until someone does, then it's FUD.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Document formats are what maintains Microsoft's Office monopoly. Need I say more?
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
It doesn't matter who developed a spec, what matters is the freedom you have to implement it... WebM lets anyone implement it, h.264 requires patent licenses in order to implement it.
Both specs are finalised, so noone can contribute to them anymore. Any contributions made would become part of a future spec, and there is nothing stopping you contributing to WebM and making future versions of the codec with or without google's cooperation.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Fuking wankers that's what they are
I've done quite a lot of professional video streaming via website for large well known companies. They don't know/care/understand open source, they don't know/care/understand patent liability.
They want max bang for buck, where bang is video quality and buck is filesize/lack of streaming problems on a shitty connection.
That's still h264. It's often *stunning* in it's ability to compress quality video. WebM becomes defacto standard when it's a better tool than the alternative.
To compare this to png/jpg. They both have good uses, but jpg does better compression of photographic images, which is why your porn collection doesn't have any png's in it.
Quoting from wikipedia: AMD, ARM, and Broadcom have announced support for hardware acceleration of the WebM format.[31][32] Intel is also considering hardware-based acceleration for WebM in its Atom-based TV chips if the format gains popularity.[33] Qualcomm and Texas Instruments have announced support,[34][35] with native support coming to the TI OMAP processor.[36] Chip&Media have announced the fully hardware decoder for VP8 that can decode full HD resolution VP8 streams at 60 frames per second.[37]
No. VP8 already has better compression efficiency than h.264 and at the same time being on par in quality with h.264. From the technical point of view, WebM has the potential to be a lot better than H.264.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
businesses do care about open source. They care about *liability* as opposed to specific patent liability.
using something that you can use any way you want without requiring legal oversight is absolutely in their best interests.
See what I did here? I twisted your falseness to reality.
Both codecs are free in different ways. WebM is gratis; free as in beer; it costs no money to implement and distribute, but not to contribute to. H.264 is libre; free as in speech; you must pay to distribute an implementation, but anyone can contribute to the spec.
No.
WebM has a frozen bitstream standard. You cannot contribute to this standard, because it is frozen. However, you are free to contribute to the support software: encoders, decoders, tools. And there is vast room for improvement of the encoders, plenty of work there to keep you busy.
H.264 also has a frozen bitstram standard. During the development phase, which is now over, you could have contributed to the development process, but only if you could afford the fees to attend the meeting. I am not sure exactly how much that cost, but I saw one posting here on Slashdot claiming it was on the order of $40,000 per person per meeting. In fairness, you could probably pitch your ideas for free to one of the large companies that was sending representatives (e.g. Microsoft, Apple) and possibly get your ideas in anyway.
H.265 is under development now. Go ahead and try to contribute some ideas to it. Please report back here on Slashdot for how well that works out for you.
So, the important thing here is: H.264 and WebM are both frozen standards. Both have free software projects implementing them, to which anyone can contribute. But only one of them is fully free. H.264 is controlled by MPEG-LA, so you can only distribute H.264 (or even use H.264) with their permission, on their terms. If they decide "no H.264 licenses will be offered to Linux users" then the Linux users will have no legal way to use it. (That's a silly, extreme example, and I have no reason to think they will do that. However, they really are asserting that the mere act of using a camera that records in H.264 makes you subject to their whims, which is intolerable.)
Like I said, I think the ability to contribute the codec vastly outweighs the ability to implement it for free.
I'm sorry, but H.264 is frozen too. You are simply mistaken on this point.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
The worst part of the MPEG-LA style open process is that it works to maximize the number of patents that show up in any new specification. Rather than delivering the best technology, it delivers maximally patent encumbered technology that's good enough to meet the requirements of the project. Everyone wants a piece of the pie, and in particular, the large companies who have an interest in earlier specs and don't want to be locked out of the next one.
-Dave Haynie
No. VP8 already has better compression efficiency than h.264 and at the same time being on par in quality with h.264. From the technical point of view, WebM has the potential to be a lot better than H.264.
Uhmm... no. Unless of course you have sources for that claim. As for hardware support, which model from ARM/AMD/Broadcom has support for WebM? For example, even the latest ARM Cortex A-15 that will come out next year doesn't support WebM. When will we find support for WebM from ARM? 2015? 2020?
but Google has effectively put its patents into the public domain
When did this happen??
AFAIK, they open sourced the IMPLEMENTATION, not the underlying rights granted by patents. Now, I don't EXPECT them to be suing anyone over the relevant patents they purchased from the original developers when they bought VP8, but that doesn't mean that they can't.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
This is the real reason.
http://www.webmproject.org/hardware/
--
Q: Are there commercial chipsets on the market using the WebM video hardware IP?
A: A number of semiconductor chipset manufacturers have licensed the WebM video decoder IP. The first chips are expected on the market in 201
--
There is a 384 kGates solution, licensable from WebM (Google) Project. The MPEG-LA are scared that they're going to loose their revenue/extortsion scam...
I never understood this one. If anything, clever algorithms should be the ONLY software I am allowed to patent (one-click is not clever, GIF's compression was). These people worked hard to come up with a novel idea that they then want to make money from. What is wrong with that exactly? Why SHOULDN'T they be able to patent them? We let people patent novel ways of building a mousetrap. If my mousetrap is virtual, why is that any different?
Two big differences.
First, algorithms are not patentable in the United States, and a lot of these so-called "software patents" are actually effectively patenting the underlying algorithm, since there's no other reasonable way to implement the algorithm. Yet they still get away with it because patent clerks don't understand that the patent application someone is filing is effectively pre-empting all implementations of the algorithm, so they approve the patent. Related to this is the issue of obviousness. Patent clerks are not able to determine with software what is and what isn't obvious. Using your analogy, it's not like you patented a better mousetrap, it's more like you patented the entire concept of rodent control. Now, if someone else builds a better mousetrap, you haul them to court.
Think about it, this is the issue with Amazon's notorious "one-click" patent. What they came up with wasn't particularly novel or clever, and because of their patent, the entire concept of "press a button to order something" is now locked away by one company.
Second, you have to bear in mind what the whole point of patents is in the first place--to promote the progress of science and useful arts. The deal is that if you're willing to write down your stuff on paper and make it public, then the power of government will protect your invention for a limited period of time so that you can make money off of it. This encourages you to do research and development and make stuff. Today, though, patent holders aren't upholding their end of the bargain. They're not using patents to promote progress of science and useful arts. No, they're using them to extort people into paying them large sums of money. They're using them to engage in extremely anticompetitive practices.
I mean, look at what is going on with the VP8 codec. MPEG-LA is essentially trying to claim patent on all streaming video technologies. It's not good enough that they have H.264, a decent codec. No, they want to make sure that no one ever comes up with a competing codec of decent quality. For years, they've been threatening that Theora infringes on their patents without offering up any proof. Now, they're threatening that VP8 infringes on their patents without offering up any proof. I can't find the quote right now, but I think I remember someone at MPEG saying at one point that they believe that any streaming video technology will likely infringe on at least some of MPEG's patents. This is most definitely not what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they set up patents to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. Indeed, it is significantly hindering those ideals.
I wish there were some way to meaningfully reform the system, but I just don't see anything on the horizon. In 2010, patents increased by 30%, and I'll bet a wad of money that a very large proportion of those were software patents.
Software patents are evil, plain and simple. They need to go. Most of them are patenting obvious things, many of them are patenting algorithms (which are not supposed to be patentable). It flies in the face of what the purpose of patents are and are significantly hindering the progress of technology and competition.
The GP did only say "effectively" so perhaps they were referring to the fact that they have been licensed royalty-free, as noted here:
http://diveintohtml5.org/video.html#vp8
Quoting the linked page, it says: "In 2010, Google acquired On2 and published the video codec specification and a sample encoder and decoder as open source. As part of this, Google also "opened" all the patents that On2 had filed on VP8, by licensing them royalty-free. (This is the best you can hope for with patents. You can't actually "release" them or nullify them once they've been issued. To make them open source-friendly, you license them royalty-free, and then anyone can use the technologies the patents cover without paying anything or negotiating patent licenses.)"
they could make a counter move by trying to make a second H264 pool.
i think MPEG LA has a lot more to lose if there is a H264 patent that isn't covered by MPEG LA's pool.
I agree that there needs to be reform, but I disagree that video compression algorithms shouldn't be patentable.
(Emphasis mine.) I'm really glad you stated what you said using these exact words, because algorithms are specifically not patentable. That's why all of these so-called "software patents" don't mention "algorithm" in their titles, but instead use the wording "system and method."
The problem is that the way these patents are worded, the implementation is required for any implementation of the underlying algorithm. Why do you think that there has been no effort to simply create a patent-free clean-room reverse-engineered H.264 encoder, for example? Because the patents that cover H.264 have completely pre-empted the underlying algorithm; it's not possible to implement it without those patents. This is deliberate; most patent clerks who grant the patents don't understand that. If they did, they wouldn't grant the patent. Most judges and juries don't understand it either, or else they would regularly invalidate the patents. Nevertheless, most "software patents" are simply not valid, yet these companies still get away with it. I've seen references to people at MPEG believing that it is not possible to stream video over the Internet without breaking at least some of their patents. The way they've constantly threatened Theora and now VP8 without offering up any proof whatsoever indicates to me that this is indeed what they honestly believe.
To me, this is a painfully obvious indicator that the patent system is being abused on a large scale and needs to be either seriously reformed, or better yet, so-called "software patents" ruled invalid.
Video and compression patents are indeed a thicket. And even in the (I fear) unlikely event that VP8 doesn't currently legitimately infringe on anything (or that Google decides to indemnify users), trying to improve VP8 will require avoiding all the patented ideas that have been used (and are being used) to improve any other video codec. This seems like a prime example of a situation where trying to work around the current patent system will be incredibly painful. It would probably be better to spend the effort on trying to reform the patent system. It would help a lot to just greatly shorten the term of new software patents.
Yes you are misreading it ...
"Google hereby grants to you a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, transfer, and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of this implementation of VP8, where such license applies only to those patent claims, both currently owned by Google and acquired in the future, licensable by Google that are necessarily infringed by this implementation of VP8."
Modify is the key word you missed. They specify "this implementation" to limit the patents which are licensed (otherwise you could force them to license you patents on entirely unrelated functionality simply by including it with a modified version of WebM).
Well, if the MPEG-LA wants to look foolish, it should continue down the path it is on. My guess is this attempt to discredit VP8 is doomed to failure. Last time I checked, Google now holds the patent portfolio associated with the VP8 codec.
MPEG themselves (not MPEG LA) also issued press release: "MPEG envisages royalty-free MPEG video coding standard" http://bit.ly/hFMdGd
Let's get this MPEG LA farce out of the way now. Ignes aurum probat, after all.
It looks like an indemnification to me, and it excludes protecting you if you are silly enough to add code that includes other patents, and revokes your license if you sue anyone over patents you think you have.
-AC
Wouldn't it be a hoot if when Google bought On2 and VP8 and got the patents with it, that they have some essential patent that H.264 violates and the G-men tell MPEG LA that they are going to shut down H.264 entirely?
Alternatively we all just sit around until these stupid patents expire, at which point we all have 1GB fiber to the house and are watching uncompressed videos in 3D anyway.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
A technical analysis concerning patent infringement without a single patent number ...
He saw some things first in H.264 and also in VP8, simply for seeing it first in H.264 he assumes the techniques are validly patented ... a silly assumption.
As for hardware support, which model from ARM/AMD/Broadcom has support for WebM? For example, even the latest ARM Cortex A-15 that will come out next year doesn't support WebM. When will we find support for WebM from ARM? 2015? 2020?
I think you're confused about which part of the hardware supports video decoding and why, but for reference here's just one hardware platform with WebM support built-in:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/tegra-2.html
Tegra 2 based handsets are to be released in a matter of weeks. For fun, here's another hardware platform with WebM support. It was announced in October:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcsfOMbfix8
I typed a rant and sent it over to MPEG LA in a fit of rage...surprisingly, someone took the time to reply. Below is a copy of the email and the response:
Dear Mr. N*****,
Thank you for writing.
MPEG LA provides pool licenses for many different video codecs. We do not own any of them or favor one over another; rather, we provide one-stop licenses for the convenience of users who make their own choices. To the extent there is a thicket of patents owned by many different patent holders surrounding VP8, it exists whether or not MPEG LA offers a license. MPEG LA's interest is in offering to facilitate the creation of a license that help users address the relevant patent thicket by pooling as much essential intellectual property as possible in a single license as a convenient alternative to negotiating separate licenses with individual patent owners.
Best regards,
Tom O'Reilly
Manager Research and Public Relations
MPEG LA, LLC
Tel: (303) 200-1710
Email: toreilly@mpegla.com
Web: www.mpegla.com
From: John N*****
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 01:10 PM
To: PiD-QnA
Subject: VP8 Question
Why don’t you guys just crawl in a hole and die! This bullshit you are pulling with VP8 is just that. Keep your patent abuse limited to h.264 please.
Modify generally refers to a derived work. The implementation in libavcodec is not made by modifying libvpx code, it is an entirely independent implementation, and I'm not sure how you could interpret that patent license as applying in this case - it grants you the license to use the patents in modified and unmodified versions of the libvpx code, but not in independent implementations. Of course, Google would be shooting themselves in the foot if they tried to sue people over independent VP8 implementations, but they do appear to reserve the right to do so. They don't say that you have a license to the patents used by this implementation, they say that you have a license to the patents for use in this implementation.
Compare this with the Java patent grant, for example, which gives you the right to use Sun / Oracle patents in a conforming implementation of Java, irrespective of whether it's based on Sun's GPL'd Java code.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Indeed. I'll just add that anyone who disagrees is welcome to give another reason why 3D video is part of the same standard as the baseline profile.
H.264 is a standard all right, the standard of an evil empire. A patent encumbered standard is no standard at all - not in the way the rest of the world uses the term. All the complaints about VP8 pale in comparison to this fundamental fact.
Someone who is good at data mining. Google didn't buy On2, and thus VP8, on a lark. They looked over things before talking to On2 about making a purchase, and before committing to a purchase. These sorts of things always involve a look at the IP being purchased (under NDA of course) before the sale is made. So Google knew what was in VP8, what they were getting. Even after purchasing, Google waited some time before releasing it in to the wild.
So we have to ask ourselves what is more likely of two situations:
1) Google didn't do any research on the patents that might be involved and just said "Eh who cares," and spent time twiddling their thumbs before release, hoping everything would be ok.
or
2) Google, the company with the world's largest collection of data, who is the very best at mining that data, spent time checking to see if there were any patents that were a problem. They concluded that either there were not, or that they had (or would acquire through he On2 purchase) patents that could be used to counteract those.
Sorry, but I've got to bet that Google checked this all out. MPEG-LA is desperate because they don't want to see their model go away so they are making empty threats. Notice they don't HAVE any patents, they are going looking. I'm guessing Google has determined this won't be a problem.
How's your open OSI Model network looking these days?
I didn't read any further.