Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MPEG LA Attempts To Start VP8 Patent Pool

Posted by Soulskill on from the motives-as-pure-as-the-driven-snow dept.

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."

2 of 186 comments (clear)

  1. Does This Even Matter? by mlingojones · · Score: -1, Troll

    Even if MPEG-LA turns out to be full of hot air, between H.264 and WebM, we're choosing between the lesser of two evils.

    • H.264 is "open" (it has gone through a standardization process, and anyone can contribute) but patent-encumbered (anyone providing an implementation must pay license fees.
    • WebM is "closed" (the spec is solely under Google's control) but (hopefully) patent-unencumbered (anyone can implement it for free).

    Between the two, I would go with H.264 because I think openness is more valuable than patent-unencumbered-ness, but that's just me. Either way, we have to give something up.

  2. Re:Does This Even Matter? yes it does by mlingojones · · Score: 0, Troll

    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.