Part of the nature of the internet is going to be that there will be feedback loops amongst page ranking, but this is a little too direct.
You could have said the same thing back when googlebombing was a common occurrence.
But Google has said that they do not track browsing history in this manner time and again.
Well, no. They just keep an unanonymized (not that I think the anonymization is effective) search history if you are logged into gmail and haven't opted out and track your surfing through their ad network and Google Analytics. So you are technically right, they don't do it in this manner.
Did you read what I said? MS is in with us in the general public lounge here, we don't know what Google did to persuade, for example, AMD and Nvidia. If lack of indemnification was MS's real problem then why don't they apply it to H.264 as well?
Usually they wait until business picks up to the extent that they have something worth suing over or a pile of cash that they can easily pay.
Vorbis FUD never materialized even after major game developers started using it.
Google has deep pockets so I imagine once they've got a full roll-out that's in heavy use they're going to get hit with a lawsuit whether it has merit or not.
OTOH, Google won't just roll over, so the typical patent troll approaches are out of question.
It's pretty similar to the Oracle lawsuit. They've seen how much Android has taken off, and if they can get a few dollars for every unit sold, it more than makes up for the millions that will be spent on the lawsuit.
True, but the lawsuit doesn't seem to have done much to slow adoption, so as long as Google is willing to stand up, and they have made every indication that they are, things are looking good.
Patent risk from submarine patents: neither h.264 nor WebM offers any protection from it.
At least not to the general public, I wouldn't be too surprised if there is an indemnification scheme of some soft behind the broad support Google was able to attract from other companies.
Yes, but their royalties don't seem to cover their own licensing fees. Then again, Microsoft benefits from the status quo of big companies controlling and dividing the market among themselves.
As opposed to the patent unknown of WebM.
It's as known as H.264, e.i. we know who holds the known patents. If you are saying it is in violation of strong patents without naming them you are arguing against years of On2 selling video codecs withou being sued in the ground. In absence of contrary evidence the reasonable position is that On2 exhibited at least as much diligence with VP8 as VP6 even before Google went over things.
Dropping firewalls because perimeter security is insufficient is like dropping authentication for remote access altogether because telnet is easily sniffed. In short, you misread me.
And yet who will argue that what Jobs has done hasn't employed thousands of people at Apple, all of which who pay taxes?
And yet who will argue that the employees don't buy stuff and pay sales tax and ensure the employment and tax payments of the store employees? Clearly if we drop the taxes on anyone who helps anyone else in some monetary we'll be raking in the optimal tax benefits!
That doesn't mean there aren't parts of VP8 which infringe on patents held by other companies.
This is the case for any software modified in the last 20-30 years, including properly licensed H.264. Unless you have specific ones to point to, it doesn't hold any weight. Anything could be patented, singling out VP8 without concrete proof is absurd.
The status of these patents could change at any time.
To the best of my knowledge "perpetual" and "irrevocable" are used in legal with their layman's definitions. There is only one particular time when it can change: if you start a patent lawsuit targeting VP8. That is hardly "any" time.
Generally, not always. The process also allowed the industry to stuff all of their collective patents in...
Such a thing is not currently feasible with WebM.
It is not desirable for WebM, it was specifically designed to be simple and easy to implement (in the sense that there aren't huge amounts of optional features). Having a million profiles and 3D video might be good for MPEG-4, but it is counterproductive to WebM's current goals (baseline for the video tag, at least I'm pretty sure that's where Google is aiming at).
I get that the DSP can handle WebM's essential bits, but how much buy-in is required from the graphics card manufacturers to make existing products thus capable?
GPUs these days are quite programmable, I'm pretty sure there are independent (from card manufacturers) codec implementations using video cards. That said, both AMD and Nvidia are listed as supporters, so they probably have bought-in.
Update: spatial intra prediction apparently dates back to Nokia’s MVC H.26L proposal, from around ~2000. It’s possible that Google believes that this is sufficient prior art to invalidate existing patents — which is not at all unreasonable!
A company that has successfully created video codecs for years without being sued for patent infringement (On2 that is) vs. a developer who vocally ignores patent problems and uses terms like "unlikely" to describe what in actual patents comes down to precise details?
Slashdot Mirror
You could have said the same thing back when googlebombing was a common occurrence.
Well, no. They just keep an unanonymized (not that I think the anonymization is effective) search history if you are logged into gmail and haven't opted out and track your surfing through their ad network and Google Analytics. So you are technically right, they don't do it in this manner.
Also see: googlebombing....
Windows NT 3.1 came out in 1993, it even had an explicit Advanced Server edition. Care to explain that less than a decade comment.
Did you read what I said? MS is in with us in the general public lounge here, we don't know what Google did to persuade, for example, AMD and Nvidia. If lack of indemnification was MS's real problem then why don't they apply it to H.264 as well?
That is pretty much what happens, yes.
My blockquote was bad, I was arguing that point against "As opposed to the patent unknown of WebM."
Vorbis FUD never materialized even after major game developers started using it.
OTOH, Google won't just roll over, so the typical patent troll approaches are out of question.
True, but the lawsuit doesn't seem to have done much to slow adoption, so as long as Google is willing to stand up, and they have made every indication that they are, things are looking good.
At least not to the general public, I wouldn't be too surprised if there is an indemnification scheme of some soft behind the broad support Google was able to attract from other companies.
Opera isn't a business?
And I believe that cross platform software should work out of the box by minimizing it's platform specific dependencies.
You could before.
Yes, but their royalties don't seem to cover their own licensing fees. Then again, Microsoft benefits from the status quo of big companies controlling and dividing the market among themselves.
As opposed to the patent unknown of WebM. It's as known as H.264, e.i. we know who holds the known patents. If you are saying it is in violation of strong patents without naming them you are arguing against years of On2 selling video codecs withou being sued in the ground. In absence of contrary evidence the reasonable position is that On2 exhibited at least as much diligence with VP8 as VP6 even before Google went over things.
Dropping firewalls because perimeter security is insufficient is like dropping authentication for remote access altogether because telnet is easily sniffed. In short, you misread me.
A couple years old? Who made that buying decision?
FFMPEG have their own decoder at the very least.
And yet who will argue that the employees don't buy stuff and pay sales tax and ensure the employment and tax payments of the store employees? Clearly if we drop the taxes on anyone who helps anyone else in some monetary we'll be raking in the optimal tax benefits!
Yes, let's only tax people who can't afford a doctor for medicare, that will work great.
This is the case for any software modified in the last 20-30 years, including properly licensed H.264. Unless you have specific ones to point to, it doesn't hold any weight. Anything could be patented, singling out VP8 without concrete proof is absurd.
To the best of my knowledge "perpetual" and "irrevocable" are used in legal with their layman's definitions. There is only one particular time when it can change: if you start a patent lawsuit targeting VP8. That is hardly "any" time.
You are putting words in my mouth, good day.
Just modern ones (MJPEG and MPEG1 are examples of widely used unencumbered video formats) with uncooperative patent holders.
It is not desirable for WebM, it was specifically designed to be simple and easy to implement (in the sense that there aren't huge amounts of optional features). Having a million profiles and 3D video might be good for MPEG-4, but it is counterproductive to WebM's current goals (baseline for the video tag, at least I'm pretty sure that's where Google is aiming at).
GPUs these days are quite programmable, I'm pretty sure there are independent (from card manufacturers) codec implementations using video cards. That said, both AMD and Nvidia are listed as supporters, so they probably have bought-in.
A company that has successfully created video codecs for years without being sued for patent infringement (On2 that is) vs. a developer who vocally ignores patent problems and uses terms like "unlikely" to describe what in actual patents comes down to precise details?