
The Nokia Patents and VP8 – Prior Art Hunting Time - mmastrac
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130324162902177
======
ChuckMcM
Its an interesting twist on the story. What are Nokia's motivations? What does
Nokia lose if there is a free to use codec out there? What does anyone lose?

From the links embedded in that it seemed like Nokia would not be open to
being 'bought off' like MPEG-LA was, so this seems like it will end up being
litigated which means a longer time with a cloud over the tech.

Back in the dot-boom days the mantra of Web 1.0 was "own the road" which was
code for massive rent-seeking type businesses around locking up key pieces of
the infrastructure and establishing control. Apparently that was a common way
in the "real" (non computer) world of manipulating power (I've read accounts
of companies/individuals buying up all the land that might have coal in it to
put pressure on the steel mills who needed that coal etc).

I had some hopes that as we crossed 2015 and moved forward things would change
radically (that is when the patents issued in 1995, the leading edge of the
amazing patent race, start expiring). However watching the sorts of
continuations and tweakish type things that have been going on is quite
discouraging.

One bright spot was this story :
<http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130124104536791> where Uniloc
didn't even make it out of the gate. This in a courtroom that has been a
favorite spot for patent trolls. So I take it as a small sign that the
judiciary is developing better insights. Progress is slow, but I choose to see
it as progress.

~~~
recoiledsnake
>From the links embedded in that it seemed like Nokia would not be open to
being 'bought off' like MPEG-LA was, so this seems like it will end up being
litigated which means a longer time with a cloud over the tech.

I think that is just legal posturing to get a higher rate for the patents. I
doubt they would block it if offered,say, a couple of billion.

------
mtgx
I hope Nokia takes Google to Court over this - only because I think Nokia
would lose the trial, and we'd be over this already - instead of just using
the same scare tactic MPEG-LA used before, of empty threats to kill momentum
for VP8. If you have something against Google/VP8, sue them already.
Otherwise, shut up. Don't just be a regular rent-seeking troll.

~~~
cooldeal
>instead of just using the same scare tactic MPEG-LA used before, of empty
threats to kill momentum for VP8

Empty threats? They have publicly listed the patents that they think are being
infringed. That is more than the MPEG-LA ever did.

>If you have something against Google/VP8, sue them already.

It doesn't work like that. You need to show the judge that you exhausted all
possible avenues before filing a case.

And you seem to think patent trials take no time. They take years. The fastest
way for VP8 to be clear of this mess is if Google thinks the patents have some
merit and they quickly come to a licensing agreement with Nokia like they did
with MPEG-LA.

------
jcampbell1
I understand what Nokia is doing here. Their entire business was trashed by
Android/iPhone, and now they are trying to drum up enough cash to survive long
enough to rehabilitate the business. It makes sense.

What I don't understand is why Google cares so much about VP8/x. What does
Google get even if they "win"? It seems winning puts them in a worse situation
as it just makes things like forking Chrome / Android easier.

~~~
drivebyacct2
Google wants a free, royalty-free codec. What does them using it have anything
to do with Chrome or Android?

~~~
jcampbell1
Right now creating a commercial fork of Chrome or Android requires paying the
MPEGLA $5M/year.

> Google wants a free, royalty-free codec.

But why? That is what I don't understand. The $5M/year in royalties is peanuts
for Google. I suppose the 2015 deadline for web video is their issue, and they
don't want to be in a bad negotiating position over YouTube.

Just to be clear, I personally want a royalty free codec, and think this type
of software patent should be abolished.

~~~
eridius
Google still needs H.264 for youtube. They can get rid of the player in
Chrome, but they still need to serve it up, unless they're willing to
completely sacrifice any hope of playing videos on iOS (and given how much
they make off of iOS I'd be shocked if they did that).

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Google could send VP8 to iOS today if they wanted, YouTube is a Google app
now, not an Apple app with Google content. They send vp8 to the Nintendo Wii
app.

~~~
eridius
And leave everyone using MobileSafari out in the cold?

------
cromwellian
My theory on the Nokia's reasoning on this, I don't think it's really about
the codec, otherwise, why are they only attacking WebRTC and not
YouTube/Chrome/Android uses?

Sorry for the G+ public link (should be viewable when not signed in), but I
use it as my blog nowadays.
[https://plus.google.com/u/1/110412141990454266397/posts/QLuD...](https://plus.google.com/u/1/110412141990454266397/posts/QLuDbzUxRQJ)

Edit: ok, I'll just inline it here to save people the trouble

<QUOTE> What if any two devices, with just a few lines of JavaScript, could
make a free voice call, or a free video call, anywhere, and not necessarily be
subjected to control by phone carriers or other entrenched interests?

WebRTC, IMHO, is one of the most important technologies added to the web
platform in the last couple of years. It is disruptive, perhaps too
disruptive. It commoditizes things which used to be hard to do, even
replicating something like Skype or Google Hangouts becomes much easier for
small startups, and it scares big IHVs and ISVs who sell equipment and charge
money for these services. It threatens to turn phone carriers into bit-pipes
as well.

Putting on my tin-foil hat, it doesn't seem surprising to me that Microsoft
(which owns Skype), Cisco (which owns WebEx), and Nokia (puppet of Microsoft),
are pushing back and finding ways to delay it. The brouhaha over the VP8 codec
is only one aspect, there are players who are worried their existing deployed
VoIP/Video HW endpoints will be obsolete legacy equipment in the new WebRTC
world, and so they do not want mandatory features which put them at a
disadvantage.

But this technology is too important to be designed in a way that makes it
hard to use, hitched to commercial legacy hardware, or encumbered by
commercially controlled cartels like MPEG-LA.

</QUOTE>

~~~
jmillikin
You linked to plus.sandbox.google.com; I suspect readers will have better luck
if it was corrected to plus.google.com .

~~~
cromwellian
Thanks, Fixed!

------
toyg
I still don't understand why Nokia are trolling Google so hard on this stuff.

~~~
OGinparadise
_I still don't understand why Nokia are trolling Google so hard on this
stuff._

Gee, why doesn't Google give away for free their algorithm or Adwords secrets?
Why should they, should be the question. Every company has an obligation to,
with all other things considered, make as much cash as possible for their
shareholders. Who cares that you think that everyone should bow to Google or
Microsoft or ...?

~~~
georgemcbay
A more fitting analogy would be:

"Gee, why doesn't Google not sue people who created their own MapReduce (which
Google has a number of patents on) implementations?"

Of course the problem with that is they _don't_ sue others who use MapReduce,
because while they aren't perfect, Google is pretty good about not abusing the
legal system (unlike quite a few tech companies I could name).

~~~
OGinparadise
If Nokia was making $60billion in revenue and $12 Billion in profits, like
Google, than maybe. Bottom line is that every company has to do what is best
for them, no go along because another one said so. Since things at Nokia
aren't going as well, patents might been as having a higher priority. Nokia
and others have spent decades inventing stuff about phones.

Google is doing this because they see something in it for themselves, make no
mistake. The true intention will show a few years down the line.

------
ecopoesis
I liked Groklaw better when it helped me understand the law and wasn't just a
shill for Google.

~~~
cooldeal
The way Groklaw was cheering on Google/Motorola/Samsung's abuse of standards
essential FRAND patents to obtain injunctions was quite telling that they're
more of a cheer squad for their favorite companies(not to mention the
Apple/Microsoft/Oracle hate) instead of being genuinely concerned about
openness and patent abuse in tech.

