

MPEG LA starts the search for VP8 patents - abraham
http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2011/02/mpeg-la-starts-the-search-for-vp8-patents.ars

======
naner
_The patents will in turn by analyzed by MPEG LA, and those deemed to be
relevant will be pooled together. The pooled patents will then be available to
license as a single convenient bundle._

It looks like they are gearing up to do the same thing Microsoft does with
companies that use Linux[1][2].

MPEG-LA is going to contact companies that make use of WebM and offer them the
opportunity to license the related MPEG-LA patents for whatever price they
set. Those that refuse get sued. That way MPEG-LA patent holders profit from
WebM while simultaneously discouraging its use. And they don't have to fight
head-to-head with Google.

1:
[http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1000142405274870445430457...](http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB10001424052748704454304575082120759511844,00.html)

2:
[http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2009/02/Microsoft_sues_TomT...](http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2009/02/Microsoft_sues_TomTom_over_patents_in_case_with_Linux_subplot_40305732.html)

------
kkowalczyk
Is it just me or by saying "Hey, if you have a patent that VP8 infringes,
let's talk" MPEG LA implicitly admits that they do not currently own or are
aware of such patents?

Either way, MPEG LA just unlocked "patent troll wannabe" achievement.

Like we needed another example showing how patents are limiting progress and
innovation by creating government-sponsored rent seeking entities pocketing
large sums of money at the expense of everyone else.

~~~
wmf
MPEG LA does not own any patents; they're just a broker. This is the same
process they have used for all previous patent pools they have built; MPEG LA
puts the burden of finding relevant patents on the patent owners because the
owners have the incentive to get patents included in the pool.

~~~
DougBTX
I don't think that's the point. The idea of patents is to make trade secrets
public for the common good. If the patents were useful, the VP8 guys would be
able to produce a list of helpful patents. Since this is a call for unknown
patents, including patents unknown to the VP8 implementors, patents have
failed to encourage innovation in this case.

~~~
jacobolus
The information in patents isn’t _exclusively_ described in those patents
themselves. I imagine a lot of the ideas become known through books, papers,
open implementations of patent-encumbered codecs, etc. There was a blog post
several months ago that made it sound like VP8 may have lifted several ideas
directly from H.264.

Furthermore, how could a patent system possibly work at all if merely claiming
that you hadn’t examined the patent in question was enough to avoid liability
for infringing it? Proving definitively that you’d read something before
making your own invention seems like it would be an impossibly high burden for
patent owners.

------
kjhghjkjh
So if one of those patents also invalidates H264 they will presumably quickly
invite the submitter to join the party?

It would be ironic if news of the patent leaked to Google who swooped in and
bought them!

They also have to be a little careful reading them - if they discover a patent
that H264 infringes on and don't admit that in court when chasing down
somebody else they are likely to have their ass handed to them on a plate -
judges really don't like that.

~~~
ghshephard
I think you're failing to understand the purpose of a patent pool here. MPEG-
LA is an organization that licenses a broad-pool of patents to companies
interested in licensing them. They actually have a number of pools, though the
H.264/AVC one is probably the most well known. MPEG-LA in turn, represents
about 30 licensor companies that all have patents (on the order of thousands)
in this H.264/AVC pool. The money they get from licensees (on the order of a
1,000 or so) is then split among the licensors (minus an administration fee by
MPEG-LA, naturally). MPEG-LA _explicitly_ makes it clear that they are not
providing any assurance (in fact, they make it clear, it's impossible to do
so) that all of the essential patents to distribute a AVC/H.264 product are
included in the pool.

So - MPEG-LA can't "Infringe" on a patent with H.264, as they don't distribute
any H.264 products. All they do is license several thousands patents from 30
licensor companies to approximately 1,000 licensees. They have no obligation
to communicate, evaluate, or otherwise publicize whether a patent submitted to
this potential VP8 pool would be useful to their H.264 licensees.

Now - the question then comes out, "How is it that the H264 LIcensors think
they have _any_ protection against some patent holding company out there? What
prevents someone with a critical H.264 patent from going after Microsoft, or
Apple and asking for $500Million claim?"

Apparently, this is where the concept of estoppel by laches comes into play.
MPEG-LA went out of it's way to (A) Put out a call for any patents essential
to H.264, and (B) Published, very openly, the names of every licensor. Anyone
with a patent that is essential to H.264 has had every opportunity to come
forth with one - it's been very, very, very public who they could contact. At
a certain point, you can't delay your claims, or you lose some of your
standing to claim them. This doesn't guarantee that the licensors won't face a
lawsuit some time in the future, but it certainly tips the legal scales
somewhat in their favor, and likely reduces the potential for a charge of
willful infringement and the damages that come along with such.

One of the purposes of Patent Pools, is to create this "certainty" around the
IP strength of a manufacturer. If MPEG-LA is able to establish a patent pool
around VP8, and, after a few years, products come out, and nobody gets sued by
a submarine patent out there, we'll likely see the codec become more popular,
resulting in more licensors, and, eventually, VP8 could become as popular as
H.264.

Regardless - I don't see a way for anyone to release a "Patent Free codec" in
the Video world for at least another 20 years (2028 is when the last of the
MPEG-LA patents expire).

~~~
kjhghjkjh
So the MPEG-LA isn't just a cartel of large electronics and software companies
getting together to lock any upstarts (like Google) out of the market and
protect their margins?

~~~
ghshephard
Correct - Most of the MPEG-LA Licensors are also licensees. Their primary
business line is not suing other companies, but, rather, building and selling
products. The patent pools accomplish two things. (1) It eliminates a "Patent
Thicket" - which is a scenario where a potential licensor would have to
negotiate with a bunch of different companies, and (2) creates _some_ (but not
perfect) certainty that they won't be sued for violating patents by
distributing a product.

With regards to "locking out any upstarts" - Google is _already_ a licensee of
H.264 - and, regardless, the license fees they would pay are equal to what
apple, or microsoft pay - these companies hit their royalty cap almost
instantly, and it's a small number compared to the amount of product they
distribute (on the order of $5mm)

Their has been much, much Internet debate on why Google dropped support for
H.264, but, if the VP8 Codec takes off, and MPEG-LA is able to put together a
patent pool, I fully expect Microsoft and Apple to support it as a first class
codec in their products.

I personally don't know what Google was trying to accomplish - go eyeball the
list of essential patents for AVC/H.264 [1] and tell me whether you think any
modern codec doesn't infringe a few hundred of them.

I've worked for several of these large companies - and their mindset typically
isn't that of a "Patent Troll" - they are just trying to get reasonable
license fees for the IP that other companies are distributing that use those
patents, and, most importantly, avoid being sued by Trolls and other low-lifes
that are trying to leech $$$ from companies that are actually creating value.
(Though, our General Counsel has used words somewhat more derogatory than
"leech" and "low-lifes" when referring to patent trolls)

[1]
[http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/avcCrossRe...](http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/avcCrossRefChart.pdf)

------
linuxhansl
Maybe it's time that somebody check how many VP8 patents (assuming Google
acquired them them with O2) are violated by H.264?

~~~
astrange
On2 is not a licensor in the H.264 patent pool. But they are a licensee.

