Its an interesting twist on the story. What are Nokia's motivations? What does Nokia lose if there is a free to use codec out there? What does anyone lose?
From the links embedded in that it seemed like Nokia would not be open to being 'bought off' like MPEG-LA was, so this seems like it will end up being litigated which means a longer time with a cloud over the tech.
Back in the dot-boom days the mantra of Web 1.0 was "own the road" which was code for massive rent-seeking type businesses around locking up key pieces of the infrastructure and establishing control. Apparently that was a common way in the "real" (non computer) world of manipulating power (I've read accounts of companies/individuals buying up all the land that might have coal in it to put pressure on the steel mills who needed that coal etc).
I had some hopes that as we crossed 2015 and moved forward things would change radically (that is when the patents issued in 1995, the leading edge of the amazing patent race, start expiring). However watching the sorts of continuations and tweakish type things that have been going on is quite discouraging.
One bright spot was this story : http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130124104536791 where Uniloc didn't even make it out of the gate. This in a courtroom that has been a favorite spot for patent trolls. So I take it as a small sign that the judiciary is developing better insights. Progress is slow, but I choose to see it as progress.
>From the links embedded in that it seemed like Nokia would not be open to being 'bought off' like MPEG-LA was, so this seems like it will end up being litigated which means a longer time with a cloud over the tech.
I think that is just legal posturing to get a higher rate for the patents. I doubt they would block it if offered,say, a couple of billion.
I hope Nokia takes Google to Court over this - only because I think Nokia would lose the trial, and we'd be over this already - instead of just using the same scare tactic MPEG-LA used before, of empty threats to kill momentum for VP8. If you have something against Google/VP8, sue them already. Otherwise, shut up. Don't just be a regular rent-seeking troll.
>instead of just using the same scare tactic MPEG-LA used before, of empty threats to kill momentum for VP8
Empty threats? They have publicly listed the patents that they think are being infringed. That is more than the MPEG-LA ever did.
>If you have something against Google/VP8, sue them already.
It doesn't work like that. You need to show the judge that you exhausted all possible avenues before filing a case.
And you seem to think patent trials take no time. They take years. The fastest way for VP8 to be clear of this mess is if Google thinks the patents have some merit and they quickly come to a licensing agreement with Nokia like they did with MPEG-LA.
I understand what Nokia is doing here. Their entire business was trashed by Android/iPhone, and now they are trying to drum up enough cash to survive long enough to rehabilitate the business. It makes sense.
What I don't understand is why Google cares so much about VP8/x. What does Google get even if they "win"? It seems winning puts them in a worse situation as it just makes things like forking Chrome / Android easier.
It's complicated, and I wouldn't rule out simple disgust at obvious rent seeking behaviour, but yes even at 13 million a year and going up by 15% per annum I'm not sure the money works out on saved licences alone.
I assume that, like many of their more audacious bets, the idea is to remove a pointless tax on innovation on the web and including the potential for interference in their business models going forward.
Right now creating a commercial fork of Chrome or Android requires paying the MPEGLA $5M/year.
> Google wants a free, royalty-free codec.
But why? That is what I don't understand. The $5M/year in royalties is peanuts for Google. I suppose the 2015 deadline for web video is their issue, and they don't want to be in a bad negotiating position over YouTube.
Just to be clear, I personally want a royalty free codec, and think this type of software patent should be abolished.
Google still needs H.264 for youtube. They can get rid of the player in Chrome, but they still need to serve it up, unless they're willing to completely sacrifice any hope of playing videos on iOS (and given how much they make off of iOS I'd be shocked if they did that).
Google could send VP8 to iOS today if they wanted, YouTube is a Google app now, not an Apple app with Google content. They send vp8 to the Nintendo Wii app.
I think if you go back to the mission, it all ties together. They want an efficient way to store and deliver all the videos that you create with your Android device and consume in Chrome.
My theory on the Nokia's reasoning on this, I don't think it's really about the codec, otherwise, why are they only attacking WebRTC and not YouTube/Chrome/Android uses?
Edit: ok, I'll just inline it here to save people the trouble
<QUOTE>
What if any two devices, with just a few lines of JavaScript, could make a free voice call, or a free video call, anywhere, and not necessarily be subjected to control by phone carriers or other entrenched interests?
WebRTC, IMHO, is one of the most important technologies added to the web platform in the last couple of years. It is disruptive, perhaps too disruptive. It commoditizes things which used to be hard to do, even replicating something like Skype or Google Hangouts becomes much easier for small startups, and it scares big IHVs and ISVs who sell equipment and charge money for these services. It threatens to turn phone carriers into bit-pipes as well.
Putting on my tin-foil hat, it doesn't seem surprising to me that Microsoft (which owns Skype), Cisco (which owns WebEx), and Nokia (puppet of Microsoft), are pushing back and finding ways to delay it. The brouhaha over the VP8 codec is only one aspect, there are players who are worried their existing deployed VoIP/Video HW endpoints will be obsolete legacy equipment in the new WebRTC world, and so they do not want mandatory features which put them at a disadvantage.
But this technology is too important to be designed in a way that makes it hard to use, hitched to commercial legacy hardware, or encumbered by commercially controlled cartels like MPEG-LA.
Nokia is old-school telecoms. They're big on patents partly as a result of coming out of networking hardware, where that model traditionally makes a bit more sense.
However, in the software realm that just gives them a head start on the becoming trolls.
Simple. Why should Nokia, whose mobile business was undercut by Google using its search monopoly profits to dump a free mobile OS onto the market, give away their hard earned patents for free to Google so that they can reduce their costs on Youtube? Google can easily pay them some of the $50B cash hoard they have for them to go away.
Nokia even sold off its headquarters lately to get some cash. It'd be a disservice to Nokia's shareholders if Nokia didn't try to extract some money for their IP from Google.
I still don't understand why Nokia are trolling Google so hard on this stuff.
Gee, why doesn't Google give away for free their algorithm or Adwords secrets? Why should they, should be the question. Every company has an obligation to, with all other things considered, make as much cash as possible for their shareholders. Who cares that you think that everyone should bow to Google or Microsoft or ...?
VP8 is really not part of Nokia's core-business. Nokia's core business is making great, portable telecom hardware; a video codec they don't even use right now is not an essential part of it. In fact, it's not even a whole codec spec -- the actual patents are a bunch of implementation-specific tricks that can probably be coded around, if necessary. They make no money from these patents today and will likely never make any money at all; they've been left dormant for 8 years!
No, this is not a real industrial strategy nor "maximizing value for shareholders"; on the face of it, this is just gratuitous trolling of a competitor. It's incredibly sad and really, really unclassy, hence my struggle to understand why they're doing this. However, plenty of people seem to think it's an acceptable move to "disrupt a competitor", so hey.
"Gee, why doesn't Google not sue people who created their own MapReduce (which Google has a number of patents on) implementations?"
Of course the problem with that is they don't sue others who use MapReduce, because while they aren't perfect, Google is pretty good about not abusing the legal system (unlike quite a few tech companies I could name).
If Nokia was making $60billion in revenue and $12 Billion in profits, like Google, than maybe. Bottom line is that every company has to do what is best for them, no go along because another one said so. Since things at Nokia aren't going as well, patents might been as having a higher priority. Nokia and others have spent decades inventing stuff about phones.
Google is doing this because they see something in it for themselves, make no mistake. The true intention will show a few years down the line.
The way Groklaw was cheering on Google/Motorola/Samsung's abuse of standards essential FRAND patents to obtain injunctions was quite telling that they're more of a cheer squad for their favorite companies(not to mention the Apple/Microsoft/Oracle hate) instead of being genuinely concerned about openness and patent abuse in tech.
From the links embedded in that it seemed like Nokia would not be open to being 'bought off' like MPEG-LA was, so this seems like it will end up being litigated which means a longer time with a cloud over the tech.
Back in the dot-boom days the mantra of Web 1.0 was "own the road" which was code for massive rent-seeking type businesses around locking up key pieces of the infrastructure and establishing control. Apparently that was a common way in the "real" (non computer) world of manipulating power (I've read accounts of companies/individuals buying up all the land that might have coal in it to put pressure on the steel mills who needed that coal etc).
I had some hopes that as we crossed 2015 and moved forward things would change radically (that is when the patents issued in 1995, the leading edge of the amazing patent race, start expiring). However watching the sorts of continuations and tweakish type things that have been going on is quite discouraging.
One bright spot was this story : http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130124104536791 where Uniloc didn't even make it out of the gate. This in a courtroom that has been a favorite spot for patent trolls. So I take it as a small sign that the judiciary is developing better insights. Progress is slow, but I choose to see it as progress.