Slashdot Mirror
Google Announces WebM Community Cross Licensing
theweatherelectric writes "Google's WebM project has announced the formation of the WebM Community Cross-License Initiative. Members of the WebM-CCL agree to license patents they may hold that are essential to WebM technologies to other members under royalty-free terms. This initiative would seem to address some of Microsoft's concerns about WebM. Meanwhile, the MPEG LA appears to have remained silent after the submission period of its call for patents essential to WebM ended over a month ago."
It appears that Google isnt so sure any more about how much of WebM it owns. While there have been no public statements about what patents VP8/WebM infringes on, there have almost certainly been cases of patent holders making specific claims in private. How many of those claims are valid remains to be seen, but it sure looks like at least a few of them are being considered by Google as too risky to fight, so here we are with a patent pool proposal that offers a win-win for all involved rather than patent fights.
"His name was James Damore."
I know... you can't take a step in any direction without infringing on some software patent somewhere, so it can't be expected that there aren't patents that cover some aspect of video "on the internet." But this consortium that requires membership? Hrm... I guess it's part of how we all agree "not to sue each other" analogous to peace accords and treaties.
And MPEG-LA remained silent? Of course they did! If they spoke up, they wouldn't be able to file law suits later! It's what they exist for, after all. Why would anyone expect MPEG-LA to speak up and act against their very purpose for existence? No one has to be insightful or prophetic to predict that if/when WebM becomes the defacto standard, MPEG-LA will file suits.
I wonder if apple will support this format on mobile devices.
It won't go anywhere unless they do, since apple is a huge player in this space.
What about me, as a developer, or small business, or a member of the public ?
Read radical news here
When it happens, we won't be able to say that we weren't warned.
(Oh, but where's the trust!)
From my understanding, the codec by MPEG-LA is superior to WebM, but that WebM is theoretically safer to use than MPEG-LA. Has MPEG-LA caused any troubles or are people just assuming that one day MPEG-LA may do something dastardly evil?
I don't think any global company in the history of the world has done more for open source and open standards as Google. Comparing apples to apples, and throwing out quality, streamability, and all the technical standards, who do you REALLY trust with backing up an open codec?
Microsoft, Apple, or Google?
Who profits most from open protocols? Who profits most from DRM? The distinction is clear, and MS or Apple bashing Google is just laughable at this point. They are the ones who for years profited from DRM while Google profited from linking to open sites and content.
I8-D
"But the truth is, H.264 is just too late. MPEG2 is already everywhere..."
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Yep. Flash would not have gone anywhere without Apple. Google Maps would not have gone anywhere without Apple. Youtube would not have gone anywhere without Apple. MP3 would not have gone anywhere without Apple. Fuck, even technology companies like Google, Micosoft, Adobe, SAP, Oracle would not have gone anywhere without Apple. Fuck that, even web-oriented companies like Amazon, Netflix, Facebook would not have gone anywhere without Apple.
For any technology to survive, it has to get Apple's blessing. Because, you know, they own 100% of the PC market and all 100% of the mobile market.
... joint effort?
It would be better for all of us, better for them since they won't need to waste time and money on fighting each other, and they will still probably get some sort of profit from it.
But no doubt greed will still stand in the way. (yes, even with Google)
Someone needs to make a game on about the patent system and how patents are used by companies these days. With all these patents pools and alliances, patents being used as legal weapons, patent trolls surely someone can make a good narrative and put in some game mechanics to make a fun experience out of all of us getting screwed :P
As a patent holder I can join Google, and make sure I never receive money from creating that patent, or I can join MPEG, which I probably already am a member, and perhaps receive royalties from large customers in the future. Hmmm... tough choice. Even Goog is now basically admitting WebM is patent incumbered.
VHS had worse picture quality than Betamax, but you could do much more with it.
MPEG-LA is now in the position of having to compete against a free alternative, that's probably good enough for most applications.
Two or three times now they've announced a ramp-up in royalty rates, to be beaten back by industry pressure. Their business model has always been to start out with low prices, then ramp them up later. What's their business model now?
If h.264 stays cheap forever, then Google has won. If People switch to WebM, then Google has won. Either way, their investment pays back; and people wonder how anybody can ever make money with free software.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
MPEG-LA is a mutually beneficial organization too.
They're both patent pools.
TI isn't really developing new chips, they are developing new software for their chips (DSPs) which is actually better because it means WebM acceleration will be available more quickly and on a wider range of devices than if you had to wait for new chips.
Calling MS and Apple patent trolls is to misuse the term. Patent trolls are companies that don't develop anything, they just make claims against other people's products. MS and Apple both create significant products of their own, that's their primary source of income, not license fees.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
If that was true, then no-one would be members of Open Invention Network or Open Patent Alliance, but both have several large companies that have joined and/or contributed patents.
Furthermore, Microsoft is a member of MPEG-LA and their VC-1 format is part of the Blu-Ray standard, but they still loose out on the deal, as they have to pay more in MPEG-LA licenses for windows than they get from their patents. They gain nothing by having MPEG-LA start charging license fees for WebM.
The fact is that no-one can do anything on their own anymore - they need to license patents from others, even if they invented the device independently and have a ton of patents their own. People that actually want to do things with patents therefore do benefit from no-money exchanged cross-licensing.
Well, if we can live with "Comparing apples to apples, and throwing out quality, streamability, and all the technical standards" we'd be living on a very different planet with very different grounds for companies to decide on media technologies.
In the real world, it gets down to comparing the cost of licensing different technologies versus the costs of encode, cost of delivery, and breadth of playback for different technologies. Today, VP8 takes about 4x the time/joules to encode, 40% higher bitrate compared to H.264 High Profile (so either use higher bitrate and get lower reach and higher cost, or lower quality at the same bitrate), and isn't supported via ASIC in any shipping devices.
VP8's challenge is to get fast enough to encode, efficient enough to deliver, and have broad support enough device support to make its licensing cost difference enough to matter. As it is, the total operating costs and reach advantages of H.264 are so much lower than VP8 that H.264 licensing costs are a rounding error.
Also, Vorbis requires at least 2x the bitrate of HE-AACv2, and also doesn't have broad device acceleration.
My video compression blog
There are no CODECs from MPEG-LA. There are CODECs from MPEG. There are patent licenses from MPEG-LA. MPEG-LA does not create CODECs
The organizations have distinct functions, but as I understand it, the companies behind the codecs are members of both organizations. Or is there a fundamental difference between the memberships of MPEG and MPEG-LA that I'm also missing?
Business Software Alliance members
MPEG-LA H.264 licensors
Note how Microsoft and Apple are both members of the above groups (in case you haven't heard of BSA, they're basically the MPAA and RIAA of the software world). Google isn't a member of either group.
Any complaints that can be leveled against WebM can be leveled against H.264 (that is, it is just as likely that submarine patents exist for H.264 as for WebM). The difference is that Google is pushing for open standards that don't require license fees to use (including no license fees for playback or distribution). Google is doing the right thing, and Apple and Microsoft, as usual, are trying to lock customers into their products, limit choice, and stifle competition. Anyone who can't see that is deluding themselves, and is probably either a shill or shameless fanboi.
I don't blame Apple or Microsoft, though; if I had to compete against Linux, I'd try dirty political weasely tricks like this, because it's obvious Apple and Microsoft can't compete technically.
Nathan's blog