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."

Comments

GOOG isnt so sure anymore

[Rockoon]

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.

Re:GOOG isnt so sure anymore

[moronoxyd]

Have you had a look at the list of companies that join this CCL?

Besides Google we have Xiph.org (who develop Ogg Vorbis, which is the audio codec used by WebM), Matroska (the WEbM container is based on their container format), Mozilla and Opera (who use WebM in their browsers), companies lei MIPS and TI who most probably are in the process of developing chips who will use WebM in hardware, and so on.

These are companies that use WebM in some way and who join the CCL to support each other and the format against patent trolls and attacks like that of MPEG-LA (read: Microsoft and Apple).

Re:GOOG isnt so sure anymore

[x*yy*x]

But the truth is, WP8/WebM is just too late. H.264 is already everywhere.. And it's not just about your video player on linux, but the actual real world usage. H.264 is on TV broadcasts, game consoles, computers, mobile phones, advanced video processing software and all that goes into actual production.. It's everywhere. WP8 on the other hand isn't, it's just on your computer. That is not good enough for the real world. And then theres the facts that H.264 is both faster and gives better quality (and that is the thing what matters to people, not licenses) and that H.265 is coming out in a few years and again contains significant improvements and new technology.

If you want to have an open video format, you have to look into the future. You cannot replace it now. Improve the open video format and it's algorithm and win the next round. But it wont be won just because it's "open" (H.264 is too), but because it's a better standard. By far WP8 is not.

Re:GOOG isnt so sure anymore

[justsomebody]

and your comment is also proof that brain is not essential part for some people to function.

most (99.999999%) of software patents are just observing the life and written in code, thus not invented. and when 99.99% of process is consisting bogus obvious claims where people claim they invented something... how can this be essential? i will go so far and admit the rest could be treated as valid inventions, but how to separate them from bogus claims when people granting patent have no clue about what they are granting patent for. if your method has too many false positives, you have to wonder if your method is actually doing its job or it just creates more work for you and others.

imagine this. even showing of sorted item list is patented, ffs. now wonder, just how did people organize records before computers? by your claim, the patent from 197x played vital role in correcting that mistake (or having sorted books in bookcase and sorted items on screen falls into completely different categories, if you plan on disputing with mechanism that sorts, you can always also imagine you could as well hire someone to sort records for you and thus employ same mechanism). or this example... http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12006 (microsoft patenting virtual desktops in 2004, by your claims... if there would not be this research i would still be imagining i used them in 90s)

i'm all for patents in other areas. with my lack of understanding those they seem quite logical, but someone with understanding those areas might dispute my claims just i dispute yours.

Re:GOOG isnt so sure anymore

[peragrin]

H.264 is only around for as long as MPEG-LA doesn't charge you for viewing as well as decoding the video files.

Take a good look at what they can do. they can place a per viewer, per decoder, per encoder, per streamed, charge on every video you view online.

Right now they only charge for the streamers, and encoders. but every year they release a statement saying they can do the rest but aren't for the next couple of years.

Re:GOOG isnt so sure anymore

[oakgrove]

I personally don't care if WebM is inferior, superior, on par, or whatever. I like competition. Seems to be working for web browsers finally. Why not streaming codecs? What is it about competition that scares you?

Re:GOOG isnt so sure anymore

[hedwards]

No, but no matter how deluded or paranoid the chances are good that you're not alone in thinking it.

Google is an American company and in America you can never be completely free of some bogus patent that somebody has managed to get by the USPTO, and because they don't ever bother with verifying that something is actually eligible before granting it a patent it's nigh impossible to ever have something that's truly patent free.

Plus, it's better because of the royalty free bit. H.264 is not royalty free and never has been, they've only opened it up for free streaming, which means that they only get paid twice, once to encode it and once to decode it, which is what this was all about in the first place.

Re:GOOG isnt so sure anymore

[denis-The-menace]

Who says a member has to want to sue or not.

Re:GOOG isnt so sure anymore

[shutdown -p now]

If Microsoft really wanted WebM dead so bad, then why is it the only codec other than H.264 that's whitelisted in IE9's implementation of HTML5 video?

(the codec itself needs to be separately downloaded, but it's the only third-party codec that IE9 allows)

Wait there ARE patents with WebM?

[erroneus]

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.

Re:Wait there ARE patents with WebM?

[erroneus]

MPEG-LA is a troll organization that sues on behalf of "its members." They are more like the **AAs than a group who mutually agree not to sue one another.

Re:Wait there ARE patents with WebM?

[JavaBear]

WebM was probably spurred by the threat that MPEG-LA would only allow use of h.264 without heavy royalties, not just ont he streaming services, but also on the individuals producing the h.264 content. Only after WebM was announced did MPEG-LA retract that lime limit for free use in non-commercial uses. Even then, I guess YouTube partners and YouTube are still in hot water, as they are definitely commercial applications.

As it stands. h.264 is great for high quality, high bandwidth delivery, where WebM seems to be aimed specifically at streaming delivery and web sites..

Re:Wait there ARE patents with WebM?

[Skuto]

The important thing is the royalty free part.

See, there are 2 kinds of reasons to contribute to these codecs: 1) to collect license fees 2) to actually sell products that use them.

For the companies in (2), the license fees are a nuisance that potentially stops their products from getting more widespread acceptance. This is why some big guys, which are mostly (2), already joined Google. Even if they gain from the license fees, its much smaller than the actual product sales. They tend to be in the MPEG-LA only because that makes it cheaper to do (2), not because they want (1).

So, if you revenue "depended on video codecs", the critical question is if your revenue is coming only from the patents (also called "patent troll") or if you were actually making products.

Re:Wait there ARE patents with WebM?

[bill_mcgonigle]

So MPEG-LA is the root of evil because year after year they remain silent?

Hardly silent. Most people don't like them because their business plan is to "get 'em hooked first, then start charging them" like a drug dealer does.

It's just that WebM prevents a credible enough threat to that business plan that it keeps getting revised to be less offensive. If WebM weren't around, they'd be charging individuals per minute of their home movies of the kids. Which would create a market incentive for something like a WebM.

The market works, except for government interference. In this case, patents could tilt this balance, which is what this article is about.

Holders ?

[unity100]

What about me, as a developer, or small business, or a member of the public ?

Re:Holders ?

[theweatherelectric]

From the FAQ:

Does the WebM Project require that I join the CCL to use WebM?

No. Xiph.org, Matroska and Google make the WebM technologies available under an open-source BSD license. The terms and conditions of that open-source license have not changed.

Re:Holders ?

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't say anything about patents though. Either there are no patents (or only patents licensed for free to anyone), in which case this CCL group is unnecessary, or there are patents, in which case you either have to join the group (presumably impossible for us regular schmoes) or face litigation. As an independent developer who'd like to maybe use WebM in one of my games, this tells me that WebM is unsafe and I should stick with Theora. Am I wrong?

Re:Holders ?

[Anonymous Coward]

From the FAQ:

Does the WebM Project require that I join the CCL to use WebM?

No. Xiph.org, Matroska and Google make the WebM technologies available under an open-source BSD license. The terms and conditions of that open-source license have not changed.

Sorry, but in case other members do have patents, the actual terms say that only end users and members are protected, not persons developing, distributing WebM or using WebM for non-personal use.

MPEG is trouble

[Tsingi]

MPEG LA is a panther waiting to spring.

When it happens, we won't be able to say that we weren't warned.

(Oh, but where's the trust!)

Re:MPEG is trouble

[TheRaven64]

MPEG is an ISO working group (the Motion Picture Experts Group), which oversees the creation of standards for encoding digital video. MPEG LA is an industry consortium that collects royalties on MPEG standards, after they are official ISO standards. There are some common members, but MPEG LA is not in any way affiliated with MPEG.

At some point, it's just bashing...

[Kamiza Ikioi]

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.

Re:At some point, it's just bashing...

[soupd]

Apple's lengthy list of open source contributions are listed at http://www.apple.com/opensource/

Re:At some point, it's just bashing...

[zeroshade]

No one has said it was black and white. However, it's not a fallacy that Google is much more open than Apple. Just look at their business models, Google doesn't open it's technologies only "when it doesn't impact [its] revenue". Google has many times opened it's technology as a point of maximizing its revenue. On that note, Apple doesn't open a technology when it doesn't impact revenue, Apple does it, like Google and any other company, because it helps the revenue by getting more developers involved. If the point of the technology is that the more people who use it, the better, then it's an effective strategy to energize developers and save money by having a community developed piece of software.

The point where people say "Apple is closed, Google is open" is the way they go about business. Apple locks down their hardware and charges a premium for it, you're not allowed by license to run OS X on non-Apple hardware. Comparing AdWords and iOS as "products" is just laughable. One is a consumer product that users interact with directly and own the hardware that it runs on. The other is a service that is provided for users that runs on hardware owned by the company providing the service. AdWords is a service for advertising with a documented API and yes, it could be more open. However, the major problem with iOS isn't that it's not open-source (though yes, that would be awesome) it's the lockdown that it does. Compare Android to iOS. Using Android a user can completely replace built-in functions with user-apps, get a new dialer a new program to manage texting, replace the default browser, the default sound manager, etc. iOS just doesn't provide the functionality for that, you use these apps alongside the existing ones. In Android a user can install any application they want, from anywhere, iOS locks you to Apple's store, of course.

How long until the Mac OS App Store does something similar where everything has to be signed by Apple in order to be installed, thus meaning that anyone who wants to release an Application for Mac has to pay for Apple to sign it? Or some other bullshit. Because of the track record of Apple = closed, Google = open (yes, it's simplistic and not a true representation of reality. This is just the perception) people wouldn't be too surprised if Apple did that because it makes sense given their current direction. If Google suddenly locked Android down to only the Android Market and stopped allowing external installations of applications, it would be a complete surprise.

So yes, looking at it in black and white terms is simplistic and not entirely accurate. However, you already admitted that Google has been much more committed to open source than Apple. Looking at the products, the direction of the company and their position on the community, saying that that "Apple is closed and Google is open" is much more accurate than you think.

Heard that one before

[Sloppy]

"But the truth is, H.264 is just too late. MPEG2 is already everywhere..."

Re:Heard that one before

[x*yy*x]

And nobody replaced MPEG2 with inferior technology. It got replaced when better codecs and algorithms were adopted.

VHS

[bill_mcgonigle]

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.

MPEG-LA says the exact same thing

[YesIAmAScript]

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.

Re:Apple, Apple, fap, fap, fap, Apple

[Americano]

Grow up?

I simply pointed out that the GP post was correct: Without Apple, Flash wasn't going anywhere. It would have remained entrenched as a de facto, closed, proprietary standard. Why? Because every other platform has insisted that they support it, despite the fact that Adobe seems incapable of writing a plugin that functions with any semblance of reliability.

"Allowing" flash on Android certainly has nothing to do with it being "open" or "closed." But when you tout "openness" as one of the defining characteristics of your platform, it's oddly incongruous in the next breath to tout your firm commitment to delivering closed, proprietary standards on top of your platform. Isn't this why we're also being asked to conclude that H.264 is bad, and WebM is good? H.264 is far more prevalent, but we're asked to move away from it because it's not free and open, and WebM (allegedly) is free and open?

When the Android platform manager, Andy Rubin, claims that his platform is the very definition of "open", he opens his platform up to a bit of criticism over the very odd choice of saying that openness is good, except where Flash is involved. Lest you've forgotten, Mr. Rubin had this to say about openness:

the definition of open: "mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make"

Re:Apple, Apple, fap, fap, fap, Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you still not understand this? Flash is not part of Android. It is not part of the Android browser. It is an app in the market. It is really that simple.

Do some phones ship with flash? Sure. Mine didn't, but some do. Mine also shipped with the Facebook app. The Facebook app isn't open.

Is anyone complaining? No. Do you know why? Because both Android and iPhone have Facebook apps, but only Android has flash, so immature iPhone users run around like headless chickens going on and on about this big "open" paradox within Android.

I will explain it one more time. Android is open source. It is open, it is free, you can downlod it with git and RMS would roll around in the source code without feeling dirty.

Android is the operating system, but it allows you to install apps. Those apps may be open or closed. Anyone is able to make apps for it. If an app is popular, it might come preinstalled on the phone. If an app is very popular, Google might even happily announce that it is available.

Adobe is not Google, and Flash is not a Google product. It is simply an Adobe app that Adobe has made available for use on Android phones.

I think I covered everything here, but I await your "Google SAYS Android is open, yet there is this whole FLASH issue that needs to be considered" retort.