

Google called the MPEG-LA's bluff, and won - thomholwerda
http://www.osnews.com/story/26849/Google_called_the_MPEG-LA_s_bluff_and_won

======
kenjackson
Saying that Google "won" is an absurd statement. What was the competition?
What Google did was smart. The fear of patent infringement was likely the
biggest issue VP8 had. They've taken that off the table.

But saying they've won seems to imply that someone lost. MPEG-LA didn't have
to make a deal with them. But they got enough money that is was worth it to
them. As far as they're concerned they get money from Google now, plus all the
fees from everyone else. That's a "win" for MPEG-LA.

Both Apple and MS pay for H264. I'm sure both would be happy to not have to
pay for a codec (although H264 will be around for a long time, even in the
worst case). Microsoft's position on VP8 has been pretty clear... they're not
shipping it (but maybe will now), but aren't opposed to it.

This was a smart move. But doesn't mean that there are winners and losers. And
certainly there was no bluff that was called. Paying to license patents from a
patent holder is hardly calling their bluff.

~~~
thomholwerda
VP8 went from (according to the MPEG-LA and its proponents) legally dangerous
to a better option (at least legally) than H.264, covering more users and more
usage scenarios (namely, not just non-commercial, but commercial too), and for
free to users, to boot.

So yes, VP8 (and thus Google) won.

~~~
lnanek2
That's like saying someone claimed they didn't order something at a restaurant
while the restaurant claimed they did. The person pays anyway and the
restaurant is happy and they don't get in trouble. Did the person win? Google
has claimed for a long time VP8 was clear of patents. This is them giving up.

~~~
fpgeek
Doesn't it depend on how much they paid? If the person paid for much less than
the restaurant was asking and/or for less than a court case would cost, I'd
say they won. And as long as the size of Google's MPEG-LA payment isn't
visible in their next earnings report (remember the MPEG-LA was claiming
hundreds of millions of willful infringements), I'd say Google won, too.

~~~
tripzilch
> Doesn't it depend on how much they paid? If the person paid for much less
> than the restaurant was asking and/or for less than a court case would cost,
> I'd say they won.

I guess that's a matter of opinion then.

Because if the person really didn't order (or receive) any meal, and they
still had to pay _anything_ to clear up matters, I wouldn't say they _won_. At
most I'd say they got off relatively well, considering circumstances. The
restaurant, however, getting _any_ money for a meal they didn't make, is a
clear winner.

On the other hand (and I'm not sure how/if this holds up in the analogy
because I'm not entirely clear about what's going on with the Google/MPEG-LA
thing) if the restaurant _did_ prepare the meal they claim the person ordered
(but who didn't), assuming they got less than the costs of the meal, both are
losers. Which figures because miscommunication often lead to waste.

------
drucken
How does agreeing with a random third-party about how you can use your own
product, and worse, paying them for the mere unproven _possibility_ that they
own parts of your product, count as "won"?

In any other situation, history would classify this as a clear cut case of
_racketeering_ or extortion.

~~~
rdtsc
Yes I am still waiting for that answer. Maybe I am being dense but to me this
is not a victory? If anything seems like a loss? In other words suspicions now
are founded that VP8 was never free of patent infringement.

~~~
mjg59
It's arguably a victory within the existing rules of the game. Taking it to an
extreme - if Google paid a single cent in order to remove the threat of MPEG-
LA related patent suits and in return massively increased adoption of VP8 and
following specs, would that have been a victory? A dollar? Ten dollars? A
million dollars? It's a victory for Google if the cost to them is less than
the expected benefits of removing a barrier to adoption.

Of course, the flipside to this is that it's also a victory for the existing
patent system. It's usually cheaper for people to settle than it is for them
to fight a patent suit, even if they win. At the end you maybe get most of
your costs back, and it's cost you several years of your competitors telling
your potential customers that you're a patent infringer and if they implement
the spec they could be next.

So yes, a real victory would require certainty over the patent status of VP8
without Google having had to pay anyone anything, but also without having to
spend years in litigation to prove that. But that's not an option at the
moment, and the fact that Google were able to negotiate a relatively wide-
ranging and liberal license (without any admission of infringement) is
arguably the best that's possible without significant changes in the law.

------
TheZenPsycho
haha this is absurd, and drawing the conclusion in the headline makes about as
much sense as "Google admits its WebM (VP8) codec infringes MPEG H.264
patents; agrees to license technology" [1]

It is so hard to take OSNews seriously.

[1] [http://macdailynews.com/2013/03/08/google-admits-its-webm-
vp...](http://macdailynews.com/2013/03/08/google-admits-its-webm-vp8-codec-
infringes-mpeg-h-264-patents-agrees-to-license-technology/)

~~~
rlanday
I think the article you linked is a pretty reasonable interpretation. Google
was claiming VP8 didn’t infringe any patents they didn’t own, which apparently
wasn’t the case, and now they’re having to backpedal and say, “well, it did
infringe them, but we’re covering the licensing.” My understanding is that
MPEG-LA does not engage in “patent trolling,” but exists to provide an easy
way to license all the (known) patents. I think it would be up to the
individual patent holders to try to sue for infringement. I think Daniel Eran
Dilger is spot-on here; there’s been a lot of misinformation being spread by
some proponents of free video codecs, first that Theora is good or almost as
good as H.264 based on some crappy codec comparisons (it’s not), and then that
VP8 was not patent-encumbered. I recall thinking the situation with VP8 when
Google first released it for free kind of seemed to me like a “turd sandwich,”
since the quality was somewhere between slightly inferior and very inferior
(due to a bad encoder) to H.264, and the licensing was uncertain, despite
Google’s claims.

~~~
TheZenPsycho
It seems that google's position is firmly that this agreement is not an
admission that they infringed any patents. That said, it's a pretty funny
statement coming from an entity that just paid for patent licensing. The
tricky thing about the situation is that the _details_ of the agreement aren't
clear enough to say who "won", and personally, it looks to me more like a
stalemate. Even stalemate might be putting it strongly, as it implies that
they are in some kind of opposition, which may not be the case.

~~~
ratherbefuddled
"Paid for" is an assumption isn't it?

~~~
TheZenPsycho
Oh you're right. It seems they are being tight lipped about whether money was
exchanged.

------
thefreeman
I don't understand why so many comments are painting this as bad. Who cares if
Google paid a shitload of money to MPEG-LA. The main point is, VP8 is now free
for anyone to use, for any reason. Wasn't that the goal?

~~~
Jabbles
No, VP8 is not necessarily "free", there are numerous companies that may wish
to sue the users of VP8 over patent infringement. Qualcomm, Broadcom, Samsung
etc. (Why would you want a free alternative when you're the only few companies
that can make hardware encoders?)

Companies that are in MPEG-LA won't sue, but there are many "relevant"
companies that have not joined. Companies are still being sued (and settling)
over patents supposedly infringed by H.264.

The system is a mess. Google are moving in the right direction by eliminating
a large potential threat (MPEG-LA), but it's job is not done yet.

Note that Google pushing VP8/9 is trying to promote competition and reduce the
licencing costs of H.264/5. This is very similar to what Microsoft (rightly)
did before with VC-1.

~~~
fpgeek
Samsung couldn't sue - they've already shipped hundreds of millions of WebM
implementations that they lose their patent license for if they do. Depending
on how much WebM-related code ended up in their graphics drivers and/or how
widely distributed their Android reference platforms are, Qualcomm could
easily face similar issues. And well, um, Google has also clearly taken care
of a third major H.264 patent holder outside the MPEG-LA - Motorola. I'm sure
there are others out there, but the pickings are getting thinner and thinner.

~~~
tripzilch
> Samsung couldn't sue - they've already shipped hundreds of millions of WebM
> implementations that they lose their patent license for if they do.

I don't understand, why would they stand to lose their patent license for
WebM?

It says on Wikipedia about WebM that "The project releases WebM related
software under a BSD license and all users are granted a worldwide, non-
exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free patent license" so how can anyone lose the
right to that license?

And given that the above WP quote is in fact true, what would Samsung sue over
in the first place?

> And well, um, Google has also clearly taken care of a third major H.264
> patent holder outside the MPEG-LA - Motorola.

Because, what did they do to Motorola then?

Would I be sort of correct in saying this whole matter is more about
power/politics between these big corporations (using patents as leverage) than
it is about the actual legality of who is doing what with whose algorithms--in
the sense that they do use these legal tactics to attain their goals but the
usual goal (justice) is secondary?

That'd explain why it's so confusing to me, laws are usually quite logical
(especially the codified type), but politics and power gets really complex
really fast (to me).

~~~
Sephr
> why would they stand to lose their patent license for WebM?

From <http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/> and
<http://www.webmproject.org/license/bitstream/>

> 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.

~~~
tripzilch
Right. That explains that then, thx :)

And somehow all these corporations (Samsung, Broadcom, etc) believe they have
a claim to these patents? But it can at best be only _one_ of them, right?

------
codex
TL;DR Google gave MPEG-LA a bunch of money. Yep, Google sure showed them!

~~~
DannyBee
You misunderstand the nature of the agreement.

Please point to a case where MPEG-LA has given a _completely sublicensable
royalty-free right_ to someone for H.264, for _any_ amount of money.

Can you get all the H.264 rights MPEG-LA offers from microsoft or apple,
without going through MPEG-LA? Does it cover all use cases?

~~~
codex
H.264 is obsolete. MPEG-LA is moving on to H.265, the new hotness. It is
telling that MPEG-LA's sub-licensing for VP8 only covers one subsequent
revision of the codec. If VPx+ is augmented with H.265'ish technology in order
to stay competitive, we'll see a new round of fighting.

~~~
DannyBee
You completely ignored the question I asked, by raising an irrelevant point :)

I'll point out that despite your claim that H.264 is "obsolete", nobody
_still_ has gotten the kind of licensing google just did, despite people
trying.

~~~
codex
Both Microsoft and Apple have patents in the H.264 patent pool. It is in their
interest for H.264 licensees to go through MPEG-LA; it is not in their
interest to give away sublicenses.

~~~
DannyBee
Actually, neither make much revenue from that pool. But, fine, pick someone
else. AFAIK, nobody has the right to sublicense all the H.264 patent rights to
others.

This is one reason, for example, you have cameras and camcorders that ban
professional use.

------
darkchasma
Meanwhile, in reality, everyone is using H.264. Seems like a lot of wasted
effort to me.

~~~
tripzilch
Well, next up is Google paying off the Scene to drop H.264 and switch to VP8
:)

------
runn1ng
If you cut the crap, does this mean VP8 is safe to use for everyone for free
(without royalties to either MPEG-LA or Google) or not?

~~~
Tloewald
Safe except for not working in most places you care about.

------
josephlord
I know many here don't like/trust Florian Mueller but he is claiming that
Nokia (not part of MPEG-LA patent pools for either VP8 or AVC) is currently
suing HTC for patent infringement regarding VP8 in Germany. Google is acting
as an intervenor. Assuming this is correct (and I have no reason to doubt it)
VP8 is not in the clear just yet and Nokia did not participate in the
standardisation so is not committed to FRAND licensing.

It is obviously possible that the court could rule the patent is either
invalid or not infringed but I think it would be wise to avoid counting
chickens just yet (unless anyone has good alternative and contradictory
sources on this).

[http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/patent-clouds-remain-
over...](http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/patent-clouds-remain-over-
vp8-google.html)

------
buster
It's a shame. As much as i wish this headline would be true, it does only seem
to me that Google bent to MPEG-LAs will, a conglomerate of Apple, MS and what
not..

From my point of view, the MPEG-LA needs to be shut down, not subsidized with
more money. It shows every sign of a typical patent troll and will always
choose the option that guarantees its members income, not the most innovative
or best option, but the one where there the most money can be leeched out of
people and companies.

~~~
pja
On the one hand, MPEG-LA appears to have "won", because they got Google to
licence their patents. On the other hand, the license Google has acquired is
incredibly broad: MPEG-LA usually seems to offer broad non-commercial / small
income rights but reserves the right to charge considerably more for large
scale commercial use of codecs that they regard as infringing patents in their
pool. They've given up on receiving any of that income from future use of VP8.

Perhaps they regard VP8 as a dead codec, now that h.265 is on the horizon, so
not worth the licensing effort?

~~~
fpgeek
The license agreement also applies to future codecs derived from VP8, most
specifically VP9, so I doubt the MPEG-LA thought it was giving a license to a
dead effort.

~~~
pja
Point. I think the general thought still stands: Perhaps MPEG-LA believes they
have now established h.26[45] strongly enough that VP9 will never be a threat.

Of course, if we knew how much Google had actually paid for these patent
licenses we'd have a much better idea of who, if anyone, had actually "won"! I
doubt we'll get that information though.

~~~
fpgeek
The alleged infringement was massive - every download of Chrome 6+ and every
Gingerbread+ Android device (or at least the ones with the Google apps) to
start. And all of it could easily have been willful - On2 and MPEG-LA had
apparently tangled long before Google got involved.

Given that, I think not finding out financial terms is a tell all by itself.
As I've said elsewhere in this thread, I don't think Google would be able to
hide the cost of an MPEG-LA win in their earnings reports.

~~~
randomfool
Not to mention that the free internet broadcast license of h264 expires in
2015. After that I am fairly sure that Google will be looking at hefty fees
for YouTube if they do not convert over to VP8.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
The MPEG-LA extended that free licence to forever already due to the threat of
vp8. And YouTube is already converted to VP8.

On the other hand you still need to pay to sell TV shows and movies, which
Google has just started rolling out as VP8 (starting with ChromeOS clients but
expanding from there).

~~~
fpgeek
Google Play Movies and TV is going VP8? Interesting.

------
mtgx
Regardless of whether Google "won" or not, it does look like VP8 will be a
much more approachable codec thanks to being open source, and because it
doesn't require video makers to pay MPEG-LA license fees whenever they want to
make money from their videos. I'd think at the very least professional camera
makers would be interested in supporting it. From that point of view, I think
the article is right.

~~~
gillianseed
Even better, given that the issues raised by (iirc) Mircosoft and Apple
against webp becoming the HTML5 standard video codec (and thus mandatory to
support for HTML5 compliance) was that of 'patent uncertainty', with this
agreement we can finally get a really great royalty free standard codec which
can be used with any browser which is HTML5 compliant.

Same goes for WebRTC, which should now be on the fasttrack to be accepted as
the standard for RTC (currently supported by Chrome, Mozilla and Opera).

I think having open and royalty free standards for such integral parts of what
is likely to be the 'future of the web' is extremely important to foster
innovation, thanks to VP8/VP9 and Opus we now have technically competitive
offerings which anyone can implement free of charge across all platforms and
for whatever interesting solutions they can come up with.

~~~
snogglethorpe
> _the issues raised by (iirc) Mircosoft and Apple against webp becoming the
> HTML5 standard video codec_

"webm" is the video format (and uses VP8). "webp" is a related image format.

[webp is not very compelling as an image format on its own, but maybe the
relationship with webm confers some advantage...]

~~~
gillianseed
yes, that was a spelling error, but given the context of the discussion
(standard video codec) I doubt anyone failed to understand that I meant webm.

------
tomflack
Will google now follow through and remove H.264 support from chrome?(1)

(1) [http://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2011/01/google...](http://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2011/01/google-reveals-plan-to-remove-h264-support-from-chrome/)

