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

[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

[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?

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.