Google has had a year to submit VP8 to a standards organization, but hasn't done so, so its Googles fault that it isnt even on the road to being a standard.
Instead, VP8 is a "here is the source" codec.
It isnt the FORMAT that is patented, but instead the METHODOLOGY.
Essentially, ONLY that reference implementation is owned by Google. Make a change that accelerates decoding (while remaining compatible) and you might just land smack dab in the middle of not "free." Have a look at the H.264 patents and you will find that most of them deal specifically with efficient methods of doing something well understood (efficient arithmetic encoding, efficient huffman encoding, efficient golumb coding...)
The judge sentenced the guy to serve time but recommended immediate parole.
The judge is not an arbiter of parole, which is the authority of the parole boards.
As someone else already said.. if the judge didnt want this guy to serve time, he should not have sentenced him to jail time. But the judge did want him to serve time, just not hard time.
In the case of Microsoft? They are supposed to be an OS and Office software company.
uh.. what?
They started with programming languages and they still make programming languages, so if any prefix is to be added it would be "Development Software Company".. not "OS" or "Office Software Company"
..and Visual Studio is hands down the best development environment available. Funny how that works.
How long does it take to load 10M from HDD to memory on a modern system?
Including spin-up time? We take it for granted that our HD's are often always spinning when using our systems. From cold boot that simply isnt the case.
I know that when I access my older drive, which is normally not spun up (its just a backup) it takes over 1 second before I can get a directory listing.
The intent is to preserve the patent idemnity for all users of the software, not deny it
What patent indemnity? Google has NOT indemnified anyone who uses VP8/WebM. If you use VP8 then you yourself can be the one who is sued for patent infringement for VP8, and Google has not promised to look after you in any way at all.
If you think that Google would never allow something like that, please see the patent disputes against Android phones. Google isnt helping anyone being sued for using Android.
How is your version any less speculative than any other presented out there?
My version of what?
They've already done a ton of research into their patents verses others out there. They have to because of potential liability. If someone could win against VP8 then they could win against H.264 too.
Oh I see, so "my version" is that VP8 is infringing, is that it?
Sorry buddy. My version is that Google has not given rights to those patents irrevocably, in spite of everyone constantly claiming that they have.
Google explicitly gives some terms for revocation in their license. Thats a period and end of fucking story on the dishonesty of the fanboys that keep claiming that VP8 is "free" and "open" when clearly it is patent encumbered.
At a minimum those would be Googles patents that it is encumbered with, with licensing terms that come with restrictions ("don't you dare sue us")
Also, the patents behind VP8 have been released, irrevocably, to the public.
He isnt being informative. He is being dishonest.
The specific text of Googles license reads "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..."
Emphasis mine.
The exception reads "If you or your agent or exclusive licensee institute or order or agree to the institution of patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that this implementation of VP8 or any code incorporated within this implementation of VP8 constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, or inducement of patent infringement, then any patent rights granted to you under this License for this implementation of VP8 shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed."
In other words, in the event of any patent litigation regarding VP8.. then at least one entity will have its license to use VP8 revoked.. and in the event that Google is found to be infringing, EVERYONE will have their license revoked.
As for Google owning it, the license they offer ensures that you will never have to pay for it.
What is "it" here? VP8? VP8 isnt standardized and can be changed at any moment. There is no body declaring what is and is not VP8.
Google has promised that the current version of VP8 will be free and so forth..
..and even if you swallow that that promise is somehow iron clad (which it isn't, they have already made changes the WebM license.. ie, they can change it whenever the fuck they want), there is still no getting around the fact that VP8 isnt a standard. Its a moving target that is still under development.
Judging by the massive number of patents that MPEG-LA has in its 8 patent pools (of which H.264 is only one of the patent pools, with hundreds of patents in it), I'm pretty sure that Hello World infringes.. so VP8 has no shot.
..and on top of that, even if MPEG-LA doesnt happen to have patents in its pools that hit VP8, its members have hundreds if not thousands of patents for each one of the patents in those pools.
Think about how many related patents Microsoft has that didnt end up in the pool, and then think about how many Dolby (whos business is digital audio) has.
The only chance Google has is if they have acquired a patent that H.264 is infringing upon, in which case Google may possibly become a patent-holding member of MPEG-LA and would thus be free from lawsuits for any of the patents in MPEG-LA's pools.
hat is a wild exaggeration. And what about the decade before, and the decade before that? As I see it, Fraunhofer hired a researcher how had been working at a University on audio compression since 1977, and patented his work. Patent troll.
If you hire experts in the field and then patent what they come up with, thats not being a patent troll.
To believe that it is, you've gotta be drinking some seriously fucking strong reality distortion kool-aid.
Did you expect them to hire janitors and plumbers to work on audio compression?
Because an open source codec means not having to pay to encode Youtube videos.
Sure, but having to buy out some IP and then spend money on development and maintenance isnt a 'good deal' compared to those trivial licensing costs that Google has already paid.
You can bet your ass there is more to it, because your theorycraft doesnt make any fucking financial sense.
Google's motivation is obviously to try to establish an open source, free (as in speech) codec as the web standard for video.
Why would a corporation have that motivation?
Google is motivated by its own balance sheets, and absolutely nothing else. Google is not fighting the good fight for you. If they are fighting on your side then it is merely a coincidental side-effect of their greed, and you should be very worried that Google will co-opt whatever credibility your side has only to shit all over it later.
Remember when Google wasn't trying to track your every move on the internet?
They took the credibility and support for those that hated obtrusive advertising, and used it to shit all over everyone with that unprecedented level of tracking we now "enjoy."
Thats Google. Thats what they do, and its for the bottom line of their balance sheets.
What I do know is that Foxwoods problem was expanding their operations on debt one to many times. It was already the largest casino in the country but still in debt from its previous expansions when they chose to build the billion dollar MGM wing.
You're forgetting that AMD has a very comfortable performance lead at the very high end
Yes, those are AMD 48-core system at #1... and #2... and #3
Then there is the old performance per dollar metric where AMD has the top 7 chips on the market right now.
Intel definitely has some good chips, but aside from a small group of them, they are terrible value (rip off) and also not something they are selling a whole lot of (if you are throwing down $1000 for the CPU, you are probably in the market for a server chip with significantly better memory bandwidth than that i7-980 offers)
Slashdot Mirror
VP8 isnt a standard.
Google has had a year to submit VP8 to a standards organization, but hasn't done so, so its Googles fault that it isnt even on the road to being a standard.
Instead, VP8 is a "here is the source" codec.
It isnt the FORMAT that is patented, but instead the METHODOLOGY.
Essentially, ONLY that reference implementation is owned by Google. Make a change that accelerates decoding (while remaining compatible) and you might just land smack dab in the middle of not "free." Have a look at the H.264 patents and you will find that most of them deal specifically with efficient methods of doing something well understood (efficient arithmetic encoding, efficient huffman encoding, efficient golumb coding...)
Recommendations is not the same as Sentence.
The judge sentenced the guy to serve time but recommended immediate parole.
The judge is not an arbiter of parole, which is the authority of the parole boards.
As someone else already said.. if the judge didnt want this guy to serve time, he should not have sentenced him to jail time. But the judge did want him to serve time, just not hard time.
When I do your search on bing, I get this slashdot story as #1. When I do it on Google, I do not get this slashdot story on the first page.
Anecdotal evidence isn't very useful.. so with that in mind:
Compressed Compact Genetic Algorithm
Compressed Compact Genetic Algorithm
Both contain crap on the first page, both present links dealing with a different algorithm (Extended Compact Genetic Algorithm) and so forth.
More or less equal in usefulness.
In the case of Microsoft? They are supposed to be an OS and Office software company.
uh.. what?
.. not "OS" or "Office Software Company"
..and Visual Studio is hands down the best development environment available. Funny how that works.
They started with programming languages and they still make programming languages, so if any prefix is to be added it would be "Development Software Company"
But were you using Bing out of nowhere, or were you using Bing because Google failed you as well?
How long does it take to load 10M from HDD to memory on a modern system?
Including spin-up time? We take it for granted that our HD's are often always spinning when using our systems. From cold boot that simply isnt the case.
I know that when I access my older drive, which is normally not spun up (its just a backup) it takes over 1 second before I can get a directory listing.
Reading a megabyte or so from disk to RAM doesn't take longer than a couple milliseconds.
In those days, drives often peaked out at 5 Mbit/sec with seek times of at best 40ms, but often as bad as 80ms average.
So a "megabyte or so" would take several seconds to read at best.
The intent is to preserve the patent idemnity for all users of the software, not deny it
What patent indemnity? Google has NOT indemnified anyone who uses VP8/WebM. If you use VP8 then you yourself can be the one who is sued for patent infringement for VP8, and Google has not promised to look after you in any way at all.
If you think that Google would never allow something like that, please see the patent disputes against Android phones. Google isnt helping anyone being sued for using Android.
How is your version any less speculative than any other presented out there?
My version of what?
They've already done a ton of research into their patents verses others out there. They have to because of potential liability. If someone could win against VP8 then they could win against H.264 too.
Oh I see, so "my version" is that VP8 is infringing, is that it?
Sorry buddy. My version is that Google has not given rights to those patents irrevocably, in spite of everyone constantly claiming that they have.
Google explicitly gives some terms for revocation in their license. Thats a period and end of fucking story on the dishonesty of the fanboys that keep claiming that VP8 is "free" and "open" when clearly it is patent encumbered.
At a minimum those would be Googles patents that it is encumbered with, with licensing terms that come with restrictions ("don't you dare sue us")
It says that if YOU sue them or help someone sue them then YOUR rights to use the patents expires, not everyone.
Unless you win, then everyones rights go poof.
Why is this so god damned hard?
So, as long as you are not attacking Google for the VP8 related code
You mean, so long as you are not attempting to force Google to stop using your patents as if they were its own.
Now, how do you read into this that if Google is found to be infringing, everybody would have their licenses revoked?
Google does not have the standing to license other peoples patents. Why is this so hard?
Also, the patents behind VP8 have been released, irrevocably, to the public.
He isnt being informative. He is being dishonest.
.. then at least one entity will have its license to use VP8 revoked.. and in the event that Google is found to be infringing, EVERYONE will have their license revoked.
The specific text of Googles license reads "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..."
Emphasis mine.
The exception reads "If you or your agent or exclusive licensee institute or order or agree to the institution of patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that this implementation of VP8 or any code incorporated within this implementation of VP8 constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, or inducement of patent infringement, then any patent rights granted to you under this License for this implementation of VP8 shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed."
In other words, in the event of any patent litigation regarding VP8
As for Google owning it, the license they offer ensures that you will never have to pay for it.
What is "it" here? VP8? VP8 isnt standardized and can be changed at any moment. There is no body declaring what is and is not VP8.
..and even if you swallow that that promise is somehow iron clad (which it isn't, they have already made changes the WebM license.. ie, they can change it whenever the fuck they want), there is still no getting around the fact that VP8 isnt a standard. Its a moving target that is still under development.
Google has promised that the current version of VP8 will be free and so forth..
By Google removing support for H.264, it pushes for an actual open standard.
Has google submitted VP8 to a standards body when we werent looking?
This is the crux of it.
If however, Google and Mozilla remove support for H.264 and only support open codecs, Microsoft will be forced to adopt open standards as well
What are you talking about? Microsoft already said that IE will use any codec on your system.
Google is trying to force the codec that it owns lock, stock, and barrel. Which part of that confuses you?
Tweets are public. End of story.
Oh come on.. if you want a lawyers opinion then the first thing he asks is "which side do you want me to support?"
Judging by the massive number of patents that MPEG-LA has in its 8 patent pools (of which H.264 is only one of the patent pools, with hundreds of patents in it), I'm pretty sure that Hello World infringes.. so VP8 has no shot.
..and on top of that, even if MPEG-LA doesnt happen to have patents in its pools that hit VP8, its members have hundreds if not thousands of patents for each one of the patents in those pools.
Think about how many related patents Microsoft has that didnt end up in the pool, and then think about how many Dolby (whos business is digital audio) has.
The only chance Google has is if they have acquired a patent that H.264 is infringing upon, in which case Google may possibly become a patent-holding member of MPEG-LA and would thus be free from lawsuits for any of the patents in MPEG-LA's pools.
What the hell are you talking about?
GPL does not stop people from charging for software.
For someone with a 5-digit ID, you are very sadly misinformed. Have you been sleeping for a decade?
hat is a wild exaggeration. And what about the decade before, and the decade before that? As I see it, Fraunhofer hired a researcher how had been working at a University on audio compression since 1977, and patented his work. Patent troll.
If you hire experts in the field and then patent what they come up with, thats not being a patent troll.
To believe that it is, you've gotta be drinking some seriously fucking strong reality distortion kool-aid.
Did you expect them to hire janitors and plumbers to work on audio compression?
Cite your sources, mortal.
He did, basement boy.
Because an open source codec means not having to pay to encode Youtube videos.
Sure, but having to buy out some IP and then spend money on development and maintenance isnt a 'good deal' compared to those trivial licensing costs that Google has already paid.
You can bet your ass there is more to it, because your theorycraft doesnt make any fucking financial sense.
Google's motivation is obviously to try to establish an open source, free (as in speech) codec as the web standard for video.
Why would a corporation have that motivation?
Google is motivated by its own balance sheets, and absolutely nothing else. Google is not fighting the good fight for you. If they are fighting on your side then it is merely a coincidental side-effect of their greed, and you should be very worried that Google will co-opt whatever credibility your side has only to shit all over it later.
Remember when Google wasn't trying to track your every move on the internet?
They took the credibility and support for those that hated obtrusive advertising, and used it to shit all over everyone with that unprecedented level of tracking we now "enjoy."
Thats Google. Thats what they do, and its for the bottom line of their balance sheets.
Well I dont know which is "better" or "worse."
What I do know is that Foxwoods problem was expanding their operations on debt one to many times. It was already the largest casino in the country but still in debt from its previous expansions when they chose to build the billion dollar MGM wing.
You're forgetting that AMD has a very comfortable performance lead at the very high end
Yes, those are AMD 48-core system at #1... and #2... and #3
Then there is the old performance per dollar metric where AMD has the top 7 chips on the market right now.
Intel definitely has some good chips, but aside from a small group of them, they are terrible value (rip off) and also not something they are selling a whole lot of (if you are throwing down $1000 for the CPU, you are probably in the market for a server chip with significantly better memory bandwidth than that i7-980 offers)
Here is my predictions:
1) Bulldozer will beat Sandy Bridge on integer performance (clock for clock) but will lag badly on floating point performance (clock for clock.)
2) Nobody will complain about DRM in AMD processors because they dont have any.