

Google's VP8 video codec (and ffmpeg) - pufuwozu
http://blogs.gnome.org/rbultje/2010/06/27/googles-vp8-video-codec/

======
samps
This is awesome. Congratulations to the always-incredible developers of
ffmpeg.

One thing is worrisome about this: _since H.264 (the current industry standard
video codec) and VP8 are highly similar, we can share code (and more
importantly: optimizations) between FFmpeg’s H.264 and VP8 decoders_

So it looks like VP8 is so similar to H.264 that decoders for the two can
share quite a bit of code (something Jason Garrett-Glaser suggested might be
the case: <http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=377> ). Have to admit that this
doesn't seem to bode too well for VP8's claim to relative freedom from patent
litigation.

~~~
Natsu
Well, patents only cover the patented claims, though the lawyers try to make
them cover as much as possible, which is how we get these ridiculous
overreaching patents. But maybe this can be said to show that those features
are, on some level, generic (i.e. not innovative/novel), and therefore the
sort of thing that shouldn't be protected by patents.

That said, I certainly hope that the Bilski decision is a reasonable one, lest
we end up with patented novels, grocery lists and other inane legal
"innovations." Because I just can't see the MPEG-LA sitting around while
Google derails their gravy train. I don't know what they'll do, but FUD and
litigation seem like the most likely options. If I had to bet, I'd say that
they're gathering up whatever patents they can find and waiting to see how
Bilski turns out, so that they don't get shut down right at the start.

~~~
jrockway
On the other hand, I don't see Google sitting around while the MPEG-LA derails
_their_ gravy train. Google stands to lose a lot if they have to use a format
other than VP8 or H.264 (in bandwidth costs), or if they have to pay the H.264
licensing fee for every YouTube video, Android handset, and Chrome download.

Sadly, I think Google has more to lose than MPEG-LA, because they are the
company that is actually doing something useful. Patents encouraging
innovation indeed...

~~~
Natsu
Oh, definitely not. I have to wonder what they can do, though? They don't
offer legal indemnity (probably can't, who knows how much that would cost?)
and it might not be easy for them to insert themselves into any lawsuit the
MPEG-LA filed.

Even though they're the obvious target, there's nothing stopping them from
going after the small fry to set a precedent, or just doing a SCO-style
shakedown (only they'd presumably be more competent ... at least, it'd be hard
to be less competent).

If I had to bet on what's keeping the other shoe from dropping, they either
are still working on finding patents that might kinda-sorta read on VP8, or
they're waiting for Bilski, with some possibility of both.

But that's just my guess. I mean, who knows what they're thinking?

------
jrockway
Sometimes I feel like C programmers don't really understand reuse, but the
fact that they implemented VP8 in 1400 lines of code means that I am wrong.
Excellent work!

~~~
slew1
re-use is all about technique, not the language.

------
tiles
_Most importantly, the spec really is a straight copypaste of the decoder’s
source code. As a specification, that’s not very useful or professional. We
hope that over time, this will improve._

This still baffles me. Why hasn't Google spent the effort to write up a decent
spec? Are they waiting until the inevitable litigation with MPEG-LA to make
their file format generic? Would this help them in litigation?

------
ck2
_since H.264 (the current industry standard video codec) and VP8 are highly
similar, we can share code_

Hopefully not too much similar (or defeats the whole patent dodge) !

