Google might be trying to shake up video on the web by releasing the
WebM video format and VP8 codec under a royalty-free open-source license, but we've already heard the format's uncomfortably
close relationship to H.264 might cause some patent concerns, and the MPEG-LA, which licenses the H.264 patents, doesn't seem to be sitting still. CEO Larry Horn told
All Things Digital that MPEG-LA is looking into forming a patent pool in order to license vendors who want stay clear of any patent disputes while using WebM -- the idea would be to avoid any patent liability down the road by simply paying for a license now, especially since Google doesn't seem to be promising anything when it comes to protection from lawsuits. We'd wager all this means WebM will go from royalty-free to patent-encumbered just as soon as MPEG-LA gets its paperwork in order -- the same thing essentially happened to Microsoft when it tried to release the VC-1 format royalty-free -- and that means video on the web might soon be
right back where it started. We'll see what happens.
posted May 21st 2010 11:48AM
@RabidAppleFanboi
Go choke on an applecore... -1
Brinksmanshipish assholery.
kill all lawyers
@drhappy
that's the first step of any revolution
Does anybody really buy this crap? "We have patents on this stuff, but we're decent people and don't want to sue you so we'll sell you a license to use this open-source codec."
LIES!
Why on earth would this organization not just SUE THE PANTS off anyone who tried to use it? Assuming of course they aren't full of shit.
Oh god, comments abound with misconceptions and misunderstandings. So, for the benefit of all, on what I know:
- First, Flash, as long as video is concerned, is only a container (i.e. the FLV format), meant to enable video watching on Flash-enabled platforms (i.e. browsers). Of course, Adobe decides what video codecs are supported, but Flash (or FLV, which is a file format anyway) isn't a codec on it own. Over the years, Macromedia then Adobe added support for the following codecs: Sorenson Spark with Flash 6/MX, then VP6 (by the same On2 where VP8 comes from) with Flash 8, and H.264 with Flash Player 9 Update 3. So chances are the videos you watch using Flash either use H.264 or VP6 anyway.
- AVC/H.264, when it was devised jointly by the VCEG & MPEG groups, was made up of best technologies and techniques in video coding (prediction, motion compensation, quantization, entropy coding, etc.) and enabled it's use over a range of applications and requirements (i.e. the profiles) Those technologies are protected by patents, issued to companies who spent time and research on developing them (for example, Microsoft owns one patent that simplifies the otherwise complex computation of a block transform using only integer arithmetics). Since H.264 is composed of hundred of patents owned by 23 organizations worldwide (see here), a patent pool was formed (the MPEG-LA) to simplify the licensing by content producers/distributors/consumers (i.e. so when you license the codec, you don't have to calculate what you owe on each of the 400+ patents), and patent infringement disputes for patents owners. MPEG-LA isn't evil, it's just a regroupment of those companies with representatives that oversee and manage their rights over their respective patents.
- OK, so yes, AVC/H.264 is encumbered with patents. But H.264 is probably the best block-oriented, motion-compensation based codec out there (as a standard, anyway, and for the uses most people need). It's not free, but it's a small price to pay for what it offers. You just cannot make a decent video codec without owing somebody something for their work. Even Xvid is covered by patents. And VP8/WebM is just the proof of it. Google knew too well when they released it this week they couldn't do anything to protect its users. Maybe when they bought On2 they thought they had acquired a completely proprietary codec free of any patent, but realized it wasn't the case when they looked at the spec/encoder source code. Or maybe they knew all along. Anyway, if you require patent-free codec, go with something like Theora. If not, choose your codec and license it properly (it's not that expensive anyway; I have a friend who is a wedding photographer, and for videos the royalties costs her 2% or $0.02, which ever is lower, for anything over 12 minutes; 12 mins or less is royalty-free) But please stop complaining as if the MPEG-LA or the companies behind it owed you a free codec.
@johnwait Of course the one person with a lick of sense in these entire comments, will not be read by the flailing google lovers, who think google is their best friend and everything is free.
Good comment, too bad it will be down-ranked for logic.
@Tsing Tao But it doesn't make sense because Theora is based on VP3 provided by the same company, On2. The MPEG-LA has also threatened people who use Theora because at the time, it was the only real threat to H264 adoption. Now that VP8 is here, they've shifted their sights. Besides, even if the case did go to court I find it highly unlikely that any court with a sane judge would uphold a patent pool that actively prevents the creation of any competition that does not rely on paying the original creators as long as the codec was developed using clean techniques with no misappropriation, i.e. copying, or patented material. So long as all R&D was done by On2 without using data from the MPEG-LA or any of its products, I don't think there should be a problem.
@johnwait
If Google can drop $127 M on VP8 and then just hand it over to the world, why can't the same thing be done with H.264? After all, I am sure that the patent holders have "recouped" their development costs several thousand or million times over by now. Why should the world keep paying a "toll" if the "road" has already been paid for?
You are suggesting that it is "OK" for a select group of companies to charge people to exchange information in video format, forever. However, I suggest that has nothing to do with a free web, and that there are pressures building (such as the EU Digital Agenda, and general outrage at "lock-in" in all forms) which will discourage this ongoing extortion of money from the world's citizens.
Aargh! When will people stop quoting that x264 dev! He is the most wildly biased, opinionated blogger I've ever seen. Subjective doesn't even begin to describe it...
I hope this kicks Nijay in the nuts over his defence of MPEG-LA... (But maybe he just does not care.)
So, a group we've never heard of is "suggesting" that Google's "free open source" codec might be ripping on their patents, so they intend to offer a "just in case" license?
Isn't this extortion by suggestion?
"Just pay us and we'll promise not to sue you!"
This frakkers make me want to puke...
Every current MPEGLA patent pool contains a list of the "essential" patents (that is those patents which MPEGLA believes to be essential to implementing the technology (and which are owned by companies that are members of the pool)
Until such time as MPEGLA makes a similar list available for VP8/WebM, anything they say should be treated as FUD and ignored.
All these patents are ridiculous!
I would really hope someone could make a software patent JUST to say "we were the first ones to do this". And then nothing else. No legal strings attached. This is why many other countries don't allow software patents. They are ridiculous!
yeah, like we need another video format
Google and the world will win,I beleive
As a counter to the x264 dev's Oscar winning performance linked to in this story, perhaps Nilay you could also look at stuff like the opinions (still only opinions of interested parties, of course) of Gregory Maxwell, of Ogg fame.
http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/theora/2010-April/003769.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2010-May/047795.html
Google should just go ahead with their plans of open-sourcing WebM, and then massively distributing it, switching the YouTube Flash-alternative video format to WebM, and fully integrating it into Android 2.3.
Then see who sues.
I doubt anyone would actually have the balls.
if mpeg-la wants us to trust their assurances that they aren't going to go all proprietary on us, this is no way to convince anyone.