

Nokia discloses their patents on VP8/WebM - thristian
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2035/

======
thristian
A little while ago, Google reached an agreement with MPEG-LA where MPEG-LA
would stop claiming that its members had patents that covered VP8, so it
seemed that VP8 was patent-clean after all.

However, the IETF is currently trying working on the WebRTC effort for
standardizing Skype-style audio and video conferencing via web-browsers. They
have already standardised the Opus audio codec for audio-conferencing, and now
they're trying to find a suitable video-codec. VP8 was the obvious choice, but
now Nokia (who is _not_ a member of the MPEG-LA, and so is not covered by
MPEG-LA's agreement with Google) has come forward with a list of patents they
hold, which they claim cover VP8.

I don't know much about these patents, I don't know whether they do or don't
cover VP8, but it's big list with patent-numbers in it, which is far more
concrete evidence than MPEG-LA was ever able to muster.

~~~
cromwellian
I find it interesting, that if they are not part of MPEG-LA, somehow these
patents apply to VP8, but don't apply in any way to H264? Does that mean that
most commercial MPEG-LA licensees also do separate deals with Nokia, or that
by sheer coincidence, this boatload of patents manages to cover VP8 but does
not intersect H264? It smells kind of funny, like there's an alternate motive
besides looking for royalties.

~~~
othermaciej
MPEG-LA doesn't claim to have all possible H.264 patents in their patent pool.
Nokia has an FRAND obligation for H.264, so it's obligated to license on fair,
reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, but it has chosen not to be part of
the pool.

MPEG-LA did not claim to have all possible VP8 patents either.

Note that MPEG-LA is basically a group that sets up convenient one-stop
licensing, there's no such thing as being a "member" per se. You can be part
of any of their patent pools, or not, if you believe you have essential IP.

~~~
cromwellian
No they did not claim to have all the patents, nor do I expect Google made
this assumption (there's a never ending list!), but the timing is very
curious. What does Nokia really want out of this if they are not interested in
licensing under any circumstances?

This is not the first time Nokia did this. IIRC, they also threatened Ogg when
it was being proposed as the mandatory codec for the <video> element.

Certain companies that have large installed bases of H264 hardware certainly
have a vested interested in seeing H264 as the mandatory WebRTC codec.

~~~
GHFigs
Has any party actually proposed h.264 being made mandatory to implement for
WebRTC?

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Yes, Nokia, Cisco, Apple, Microsoft, Ericcson, RIM, France Telecom/Orange,
Qualcomm.

[http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dbenham-webrtc-
videomt...](http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dbenham-webrtc-videomti/)

IETF's royalty-free commitment isn't as strong as W3C's so unlike the HTML5
codec were they were just filibustering alternatives, they are actually
arguing for H.264 to be MTI. But the VP8 camp is strong enough to at least
prevent that, even if not strong enough to prevail as MTI itself.

There's some overlap with the groups that didn't want Opus made MTI as well
(one of them submitted a patent against it too).

------
cromwellian
From the ietf mailing list: "The declaration says that Nokia is not prepared
to license the listed patents for RFC 6386 under any terms."

Deja Vu: <http://boingboing.net/2007/12/09/nokia-to-w3c-ogg-is.html>

Things that make you go hmmm.

------
buster
Is it too far fetched to wonder if Nokia is fighting on behalf of MS? In the
end Nokias CEO comes from MS, Nokia is very dependant on MS nowadays and MS
has a strong interest in H264, is a member of MPEG-LA and earns money from
every H264 license?

All that software patent bullshit needs to stop, already, it's sickening!!
It's the <video> tag discussion all over again. Why can't we have royalty-
free, free-for-all codecs in an OPEN worldwide standard?! Because stupid
companies like Nokia, MS or Apple are NOT acting on behalf of the users but on
behalf of their own income.

And don't start with "but h264 has so much better quality!" No normal person
could tell the difference between a proper vp8 encoded FullHD youtube video
and a h264 one, it's not like there are glaring differences!

~~~
w0utert
>> _And don't start with "but h264 has so much better quality!" No normal
person could tell the difference between a proper vp8 encoded FullHD youtube
video and a h264 one, it's not like there are glaring differences!_

The glaring difference is in the ubiquitous hardware encoder/decoder support,
which in itself is more than enough reason to prefer H264 anywhere. I'd be
really happy if everyone should finally stop beating the dead horse that is
VP8, because as it stands it never served any other purpose than channeling
unfounded bias against H264 because it is not 'free' enough for some people to
comprehend, even though neither industry nor consumers have ever made a big
problem out of this. A bit like no-one ever bothered to complain about the
fact that there are millions of other technologies in widespread use that
aren't royalty-free. The fear-mongering and FUD about MPEG-LA as if they are
some kind of extortionist codec mafia really has been mind-boggling from day
1.

~~~
buster
There will never be an alternative the way it is today. One of the reasons the
MPEG-LA exists is to prevent and supress competition, don't you think? The
whole concept is bullshit.

I tell you how i see it: In a world without MPEG-LA (even without h264) there
would still be good video codecs. There are plenty out there (e.g. VP8, VP9,
Dirac and what not). They were created like many other codecs and standards
and still they can exist, there is no need for the MPEG-LA! The only purpose
the MPEG-LA has is to prevent competition (and thus prevent choice for the
endconsumer, for me!) from entering the market. And even without the MPEG-LA
and the licensing model (and the obvious patent trolling behaviour in the
past) there is enough money to make for codec implementations and content
creators. Why can't it be that way, that we have a "free" codec (as i've said,
there are alternatives) without the licensing and yet we can still have a
whole industry around them. Hardware chips could support a free codec and
h264. The W3C could recommend a free codec for HTML5 video and webrtc.
Software companies that write encoding/decoding software could even earn more
money (no fees) and would thrive on competition and not rely on
suppression/patent trolling. I think that everyone (meaning the customer!)
would win, if the MPEG-LA (and other patent trolls) would be shut down, you'll
have a hard time to convince me otherwise.

I couldn't care less about the "hardware decoder/encoder support" argument,
because it's a symptom of all that MPEG-LA crap, not a reason. Everything the
MPEG-LA works for is to make sure there will only be that one video codec.
They will also make sure that only H265 will get enough hardware support (see,
2 codecs in one chip, is this even possible you say!?).. And on it goes, it's
a kind of monopoly and one that knows how to play the game and keep earning
money.

The point that there are "other technologies in widespread use that aren't
royalty-free." is not an argument, it's just a sad fact. In general there are
alternatives available and in general i don't see such a patent abusing
behaviour in other areas.

~~~
othermaciej
Keep in mind that MPEG (which defines codecs) and MPEG-LA (which gives you
one-stop shopping for some of the patent licnses) are completely separate
entities.

MPEG-LA even arranges patent licensing for some codecs not developed by MPEG,
such as SMPTE VC-1.

They may have a vested interest in the royalty-bearing license regime but not
necessarily in supporting any given codec family.

------
0x09
"Unwilling to Commit to the Provisions of a), b), or c) Above" refers to the
following from the IETF's template for patent disclosures and licensing
declarations[1]

a) ___ No License Required for Implementers

b) ___ Royalty-Free, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory License to All
Implementers

c) ___ Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory License to All Implementers with
Possible Royalty/Fee

[1] <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3905>

------
zmmmmm
This seems to be a commendable action (even if it is forced by the standards
body) to me - come forward with what patents you have publicly and then it can
be resolved.

Contrast to Microsoft who claims mysterious patents on Android and refuses to
disclose what they are purposefully to create and aura of FUD and prevent any
resolution. With these patents in the open, Google can work around them,
license them or dispute their infringement directly.

~~~
pazimzadeh
All patents are by definition, publicly viewable. But you may be right in that
figuring out which patents are associated with which technologies can be hard
when companies have thousands of them.

One would think that Google would on average be better at searching through a
large database of patents than any other company, though.

~~~
noonespecial
Most of the patents in question probably read more like "method to send video
over a network" than technical documents. _Everyone_ in the space has some.
What they are disclosing is which ones they intend to make a nuisance over.

------
kragen
Another example of how patents harm innovation and in particular open-source
software: years of video codec innovation by Google and On2 are now being
pirated by Nokia using these patent threats. Note that many of the countries
where they claim to have been granted patents do not, in theory, allow
software patents at all.

~~~
GHFigs
VP8 was developed as patented proprietary technology by On2, and the only
innovation since Google purchased the company has been picking a container
format.

It might be solid gold in every other respect, but it's not a very good
example of open source innovation or of patents harming innovation.

~~~
kragen
Indeed, but On2's patents on what they invented are not shielding Google from
the expropriation of their work by Nokia, using other patents. It seems to me
that, while patents are perhaps intended to secure your ownership of your
invention, in this case they are calling On2's ownership of On2's invention
into question, and the patents On2 filed are not helping at all. If patent
offices had simply rejected all the related patent applications out of hand,
Google would now be in a much better position.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
That's one of the mental traps of the term "Intellectual Property", it doesn't
protect what you own, it only allows you to stop other people from doing
things (and therefor charge them in order to get your permision). But other
people can use the same mechanism to stop you doing things with your own
"property". That's why the asymmetric warfare of patent trolls works so well,
they don't actually do anything you can interfere with via your IP.

~~~
kragen
To put it another way, patents work to prevent innovation, but they don't work
to protect innovation.

------
jkn
I wonder if Google will be able to use its own patents on VP8 to pressure
Nokia into a deal. As I understand it, Nokia lost its license when it sued HTC
in Germany over VP8 technology[1], since the WebM licensing terms say:

 _If you or your agent or exclusive licensee institute or order or agree to
the institution of patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-
claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that this implementation of VP8
or any code incorporated within this implementation of VP8 constitutes direct
or contributory patent infringement, or inducement of patent infringement,
then any patent rights granted to you under this License for this
implementation of VP8 shall terminate as of the date such litigation is
filed._ [2]

Of course Google only gets leverage from their VP8 patents to the extent that
VP8 is used...

[1] [http://www.ietf.org/mail-
archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06704...](http://www.ietf.org/mail-
archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06704.html)

[2] <http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/>

~~~
petermonsson
As long as the Qualcomm application processors don't support hardware based
VP8 decoding, Nokia probably won't care.

The day that mainstream application processor vendors support hardware based
VP8 decoding, this will change.

------
josteink
It seems we have some very strong forces who will do everything they can do to
prevent an open, standards-based and DRM-free video-protocol to become part of
the internet.

We should shun them absolutely in every way we can.

Anyone who supports WebDRM: Boycott.

Anyone who patent-trolls: Boycott.

------
pekk
This is what happens when a company stops having anything relevant to
contribute and just becomes a bag'o'patents.

~~~
nivla
>stops having anything relevant to contribute

You mean like Lumia Phones, Nokia Maps, Nokia Free Music...

I love their apps and hardware but I do however disagree with their stance on
enforcing unnecessary patents!

~~~
nitrogen
Nokia's still little more than a blip on the smartphone radar. Their alliance
with Microsoft was an effort to save their smartphone division, and it's
affecting other areas of their business. First they laid off the entire Qt
team, now they're attacking open standards. It's like SCO all over again.

~~~
btilly
SCO worked out pretty well for Microsoft the first time. Years of distraction
from a dead company, they got to pay off David Boise in return for his
dropping the anti-trust case, and nobody successfully followed the money trail
back to Microsoft in any way that mattered.

Why wouldn't they try to do it again?

~~~
nitrogen
_Why wouldn't they try to do it again?_

Indeed, but it still makes me wish I were born on Mars or something.

------
rlanday
A Nokia spokesman is quoted in this article:
[http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/nokia-comments-on-
vp8-pat...](http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/nokia-comments-on-
vp8-patent.html)

as stating

“Nokia believes that open and collaborative efforts for standardization are in
the best interests of consumers, innovators and the industry as a whole. We
are now witnessing one company attempting to force the adoption of its
proprietary technology, which offers no advantages over existing, widely
deployed standards such as H.264 and infringes Nokia's intellectual property.
As a result, we have taken the unusual step of declaring to the Internet
Engineering Task Force that we are not prepared to license any Nokia patents
which may be needed to implement its RFC6386 specification for VP8, or for
derivative codecs.”

So their position is that since VP8 does not offer any technical or licensing
advantages over H.264 (Nokia being at least one company that owns or claims to
own patents on it), they’re going to use their patents to prevent Google from
promoting VP8. At this point, I don’t see why any reasonable person would
still want to use H.264 over VP8.

~~~
cromwellian
In other words, this isn't really about innovation or "theft of ip", but
suppressing competition, more evidence of the abuse of the patent system.

As to why a reasonable person would want to not use H.264? It's simple.
Organizations like Mozilla cannot ship software with IP encumbered codecs.
WebRTC doesn't say that you cannot use H.264, it allows you to negotiate the
codec, this debate over what is the minimum fallback codec that everyone has
to support.

Given that Microsoft/Skype/Nokia have been against the IETF WebRTC proposal,
you can gather for very good business reasons. A non-IP encumbered spec widely
deployed would be a threat to Skype/Cisco/Nokia et al who have commercial
video conferencing stuff, it would commoditize the market for video chat and
make it a trivial matter.

The established players only have to gain by delaying an open spec. I think
even if H264 were used over VP8, there Microsoft and others would find other
reasons to stop it.

~~~
rlanday
Well, I guess it looks like they’re suppresing competition, but if Nokia’s
correct that they own patents on VP8, then VP8 is patent encumbered and
promoting it just creates fragmentation. This argument seems kind of
tautological if Nokia’s the only company with patents on VP8 that Google does
not have a license to, but otherwise it seems reasonable. They could offer to
license their VP8 patents at the same cost they offer their H.264 patents at,
but instead they’re choosing not to license them at all. What other motive
would they have for “suppressing competition” if they could charge the same to
license their patents either way?

~~~
cromwellian
Realistically, everything is patent encumbered. It's probably impossible to
write anything that has more than 1,000 lines of code that isn't. That's not a
good argument for defeating a spec, it's a good argument for opposing patent
trolling and reforming the patent system.

Clearly, Nokia, which used to be a leader in the mobile market, is on is on a
downhill slide and like Kodak was with film, and is turning to their patent
portfolio to slow down the slide into the abyss. This is typical in the
industry, when companies start losing marketshare to competition, they start
getting litigious.

For example, they are suing HTC over a 1995 patent on "tethering". Really? The
entire internet going back to the 80s is about tethering. I used to tether my
Amiga off of a PC via a null-modem cable to get internet access. This is a
pretty offensive patent, in the "disgusting" sense. Apple similarly sued poor
old HTC over a 90s patent on using regular expressions to detect phone numbers
in a page and make them clickable.

Legal or not, the whole idea of "ownership" of this kind is deeply disturbing
to me. The new generation of entrepreneurs have to contend with an environment
that was far more litigious than it was in the dawn of personal computing, and
often the very same players who benefited early on by lack of trolls, are now
some of the biggest.

The only glimmer of light for me is that by the time my son is old enough to
make his way in the world, most of this crap will have expired.

------
patentlinks
Links to US, European and Canadian patents
[http://mdpaste.appspot.com/p/agdtZHBhc3Rlcg0LEgVQYXN0ZRjJoxY...](http://mdpaste.appspot.com/p/agdtZHBhc3Rlcg0LEgVQYXN0ZRjJoxYM)

------
cybernytrix
Google just killed Reader. How long before it will kill VP8?

~~~
andybak
Oh this is just getting silly now.

"How long before it will kills x?" is becoming the new "What ever happened to
'Don't Be Evil'?".

A lazy incantation trotted out by people who haven't really thought out
whether it applies to the situation under discussion in any sensible way.

