

Patent Troll Larry Horn of MPEG-LA Assembling VP8 Patent Pool - silkodyssey
http://www.osnews.com/story/23335/Patent_Troll_Larry_Horn_of_MPEG-LA_Assembling_VP8_Patent_Pool

======
mdasen
If you read the license for VP8, it specifies that you get a royalty-free
patent license for anything Google owns or has the right to license to you
free of charge for any of the technologies that VP8 uses. However, that
license is instantly revoked if you take any action against a VP8 user. I'm
guessing that On2 might have a patent library to potentially defend against
MPEG-LA. I'm guessing that Google had highly qualified patent attorneys go
over VP8 before buying On2 (and Google's Mike Jazayeri says, "We have done a
pretty thorough analysis of VP8 and On2 Technologies prior to the
acquisition").

VP8 is a huge threat to H.264. Microsoft, Google, Mozilla, and Opera have
instantly committed to it for HTML5 video. If MPEG-LA fails against it, Apple
will likely come on board as well since it's an open technology (vs. Flash
which is closed) and the fact that chip makers look like they'll implement it
(Broadcomm has already committed for its mobile chips). So, MPEG-LA is clearly
going to fight against it. Theora was more of a curiosity (no offense
intended)* - an older video codec (based on VP3, IIRC) that didn't have the
support of major companies or chipset makers. VP8 is being pushed hard by
heavyweights.

Google is not indemnifying users of VP8, but they're going to defend it. I'm
sure Google has a decent patent library that they'd be more than happy to use
to strike against not just MPEG-LA, but also its constituent members. It's
important to remember that a corporation is made up of shareholders. If Google
has a patent that many shareholders infringe on, they can strike at those
shareholders to get them to pressure MPEG-LA not to go after VP8. Shareholders
ultimately control companies including MPEG-LA. I'm sure Google could make
life more difficult for those shareholders.

*The Theora developers have done an awesome job, but they're working from a base specification that's, well, old.

~~~
Mgreen
-vs. Flash which is closed.

Flash Player is not completely open sourced, because of H264( the patent pool
of which, Apple is part of). Adobe pays the licensing fee for using H264 .
Adobe has released enough code and specification to let anyone build a flash
playing software. Completely open sourcing Flash Player wont be possible
unless H264 is open and patent free. So if Apple really wants, they can build
their own Flash Player without Adobe's approval.

src:
[http://blogs.adobe.com/open/2010/02/following_the_open_trail...](http://blogs.adobe.com/open/2010/02/following_the_open_trail.html)

~~~
mdasen
I will respectfully disagree here. Yes, you are totally correct that Adobe has
released the specification for a lot of things. However, Adobe is still
causing problems: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XBMC#RTMP_SWF_Verification>.
Right there we see that Abobe's Flash uses RTMP to stream video and servers
can implement a simple ping request that the client has to return. This ping
request is considered by Adobe to be a copy protection mechanism (similar to
me putting a note on my unlocked door saying "please don't steal my stuff" I
guess) and they have gone after people who have implemented it (more info:
[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/24/iplayer_xbmc_adobe_s...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/24/iplayer_xbmc_adobe_swf_verification/)).

Flash is mostly open. There are still portions that Adobe isn't so open about.
Plus, when something is created and maintained and extended by a single
company, it's very different from something like HTML. I mean, Adobe can
implement something, launch a working player and then tell people about the
specification for it. At which point, alternative implementations are always
behind. And there's a part of me that says that any situation where one
company is essentially 100% of the market can't be open. Openness means coding
to a spec and making sure that your stuff works on multiple implementations.
If I'm a Flash developer, I'm not going to code to a spec - I'm going to code
to the Flash player since it's the only implementation of the spec that people
really use.

So, Adobe does restrict certain things, there isn't an open development of the
spec ala HTML, they haven't open sourced the vast majority of the Flash player
that doesn't rely on licensed technologies (and whose open-sourcing would
greatly help). . . Adobe likes being the only game in town for Flash.

Frankly, even when you look at the WebM stuff, you can see that Google is
trying to make it a place for more than just Google. The WebM project website
(<http://www.webmproject.org/>) is actually copyrighted by the WebM Project -
not Google! There's no Google branding - Google is barely mentioned more than
other companies like Opera. That's open. I'm guessing Google would love
contributions and enhancements from non-Google people. That's different from
Adobe. That's a community process. And it is different.

Flash still feels very much under Adobe's thumb. No, it isn't closed like many
technologies (and that's a positive thing), but there's a meaningful
difference between the openness of Flash and the openness of HTML and other
truly open technologies.

~~~
Mgreen
I stand corrected. Thank you for sharing.

~~~
mdasen
So, I tend hate comments on the web because people like to "win" and are often
disrespectful of others and I wanted to reply to you because I think you added
something valuable to the thread (and that we don't acknowledge that enough
online).

Often there are more than one ways of looking at things (see the quote in my
HN profile). Flash can totally be considered open and just no one has put the
effort in like Adobe has to make a good player - and you're right that Apple
could make a mostly complete Flash player if they were willing to put the
effort in. But, from my perspective, it isn't as open as I'd like.
Adobe/Macromedia did stymie alternative players for many years - even
including clauses in their players EULA that you couldn't work on an
alternative implementation. Those days are gone and Adobe publishes the Flash
spec (which is an awesome step that we should acknowledge no matter where we
stand on the Flash debate). However, there are always little things like RTMP
which have edge cases that aren't as open. And my personal opinion is that
open technologies don't come from one company or person and can be improved by
everyone.

Even if a technology comes from one person or company, that can be the
catalyst of a broader community that works on it. Take WebM. Google is the
company behind VP8. However, as the WebM site says, "A key factor in the web’s
success is that its core technologies such as HTML, HTTP, and TCP/IP are open
for anyone to implement and improve." That implies that Google is expecting
others to contribute and for it to become like HTML or JavaScript or Canvas.
That's exciting for me (compared to Flash where improvements just come down
from on high). And, to be honest, if Adobe were totally committed to openness,
they could try to get the WC3 involved in Flash. There are standards bodies
that could take over Flash or they could start a project like WebM with
Google, Mozilla, and others to openly implement Flash (with H.264 and other
parts as compile-time options to be included). Yeah, it's easy for me to say
that sitting here in the cheap seats, but Adobe could put in more of an
effort. Even Microsoft has been helping the Moonlight folk to implement
Silverlight.

Flash being as open as it is, is important and I know that I've written it off
a little too much in the past. I don't want to take that away from you, Adobe,
or anyone. However, WebM looks like it'll be more open - that I could
contribute (if I had the knowledge and skill). But even not having the skill,
I know that everyone from Google to Mozilla to Adobe itself can help make it
awesome! The open nature of the web has just been awesome. It's really
exciting to me in a way that Flash just isn't. Yes, often times there's
bureaucracy and it's annoying to get new things adopted and coordinated - and
maybe Flash offers a nice single-source that can push the boundaries of new
technologies without worrying about multiple implementations.

There's no reason that HTML5 video and WebM mean that Flash has to die or that
it has no place on the web. Maybe Flash can be thought of as a kind of proving
ground for things that won't be implemented by multiple vendors until they've
proven themselves - kinda like video (Adobe implements video, it catches on
like wildfire, the W3C starts incorporating video into the HTML spec using a
more community process). I don't want to sound like an Adobe-hating person who
thinks they're just evil even if I prefer HTML5 over Flash. However, for the
long term, I think that open, community involved technologies are better and
the direction we should be going in rather than a single-sourced technology
even if the spec is being published for it.

~~~
WiseWeasel
Fine, maybe it doesn't need to die. All it needed was some healthy competition
from companies dumping resources into HTML5. It was starting to get a bit
uppity, going unchecked for so long. And with any luck, perhaps Adobe could be
pressured into releasing the runtime as a standalone open source project to
which they are the major contributor, like the WebM organization for Google,
which would be the best possible outcome.

------
po
Surely, Google saw this coming. What I want to know is what is Google's
strategy here? They are not indemnifying VP8 adopters. Technology flaws aside,
how do they expect anyone to take up VP8? I feel like it's a sacrificial pawn
in some other strategy.

~~~
DrSprout
They don't have to indemnify VP8 adopters. VP8 is only patent-free if you
agree not to do what MPEG is doing. And while it may be true that MPEG holds
some patents that apply to VP8, Google clearly holds some patents that apply
to H.264 (because this is a huge mess.)

So they can sue, but it will be an ugly battle, and unlikely to finish before
the H.264 patents expire. It's really not a good idea.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>it may be true that MPEG holds some patents that apply to VP8, Google clearly
holds some patents that apply to H.264 (because this is a huge mess.)

I presume you mean MPEG-LA hold patents over VP8? Which? Also if the reverse
is true, why aren't Google having MPEG-LA pay them license fees? Or, perhaps
that is what's going to fall out of all this now.

In any case I think all of this clearly shows that the MPEG-LA are all about
controlling the web and squeezing every cent out of it possible contrary to
their apparently lax attitude [until 2012].

~~~
DrSprout
Basically yeah, I'm saying that this is a mutually assured destruction
situation. Google having MPEG pay them license fees would validate an MPEG
lawsuit against VP8 users.

On the other hand, if MPEG decides to sue, Google will do a counter-claim,
refuse to settle, and the thing could easily be tied up in courts until all
the relevant patents have expired.

------
kilps
If it is true that it is impossible to create a video codec which doesn't
infringe on existing patents then surely it is impossible for anybody to argue
that there isn't something wrong with the patent system? My understanding is
that the idea is to force innovation to find new ways of getting things done,
not preventing them from happening all together. A compressed video file must
be obvious enough for the concept itself not to be subject to patents.

------
bcl
Good. Better to get this all resolved now so we can move on and start
spreading this to every corner of the net and mobile device. I have no doubt
that Google was anticipating this and are ready to deal with it.

------
Qz
_"Yes," Horn answered, "In view of the marketplace uncertainties regarding
patent licensing needs for such technologies, there have been expressions of
interest from the market urging us to facilitate formation of licenses that
would address the market's need for a convenient one-stop marketplace
alternative to negotiating separate licenses with individual patent holders in
accessing essential patent rights for VP8 as well as other codecs, and we are
looking into the prospects of doing so."_

I'll give the guy one thing -- he speaks good run-on.

------
protomyth
The funny thing is that the MPEG-LA could have taken a much different strategy
and had all the money to themselves. If they had only charged a fee for
hardware devices, no one really would have cared.

------
Hoff
There's nothing really all that interesting here until this mess gets hashed
out in the courts; it's all academic (and legal) for now.

Nobody (that matters) is going to aggressively move to VP8 prior to that;
you'll get the usual lip service. Or you'll get ignored. Or both. Until
there's some standing and some idea of the patent landscape, any commercial
entity (with money to move forward, which is also money to lose in a patent
tussle) will be making an investment that may get the company either nowhere,
or sued.

If it proves unencumbered, VP8 would put a ceiling on MPEG-LA and H.264, and
thus the patent holders will undoubted get to tussle this in court.

If encumbered, you'll either pay or you'll be blocked depending on what the
patent holder(s) want.

Apple has H.264 in hardware. They'll either ignore VP8, or it'll take multiple
replacement cycles or a software work-around to get a new CODEC out. And given
that Apple already has H.264, they'll likely be disinclined just because VP8
is not Better Enough to warrant the migration effort.

Either way the tussle ends, we'll know VP8 is in the clear or not. Odds are
that there are patents. But until the legal tussles end and the CODEC is
unencumbered or encumbered and licensed, it's all academic.

------
jheriko
If we would just all collectively stop tolerating this crap and treat it with
the contempt it deserves then patents would disappear.

------
mambodog
The article repeats itself a fair bit, doesn't it?

