http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/ Engadget Comments for Google's WebM video format might not be so free after all, says MPEG-LA http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/May 21st 2010 11:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/Free comes at a cost, always does...]]>May 21st 2010 11:55AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/
This may be overstating the obvious, but I'm sure Google has a few corporate lawyers who look into this sort of thing before they go and deliver a keynote on it.]]>May 21st 2010 11:59AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/
Not to mention, they are taking a stand on WebM. What they are doing is introducing fear to other companies as to the consequences of using WebM for commercial purposes. Who would want to take that risk? Just go with h.264. If you pay the fees, you have nothing to worry about, since that also comes with litigation protection.]]>May 21st 2010 12:03PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/
Not to mention, I actually think there are a number of big players that own parts of h.264, like Microsoft. They all have patents on the codec. So they all have a vested interest in seeing it be the standard.

Even Microsoft has effectively abandoned VC-1. h.264 is their main push.]]>May 21st 2010 12:06PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/Right because apple doesn't offer anything that is open source...
http://www.apple.com/opensource/
and one of their largest open sourced projects
http://webkit.org/
]]>May 21st 2010 12:06PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/Didn't Steve Jobs say "VP8 is simply way too similar to H.264: a pithy, if slightly inaccurate, description of VP8 would be "H.264 Baseline Profile with a better entropy coder". Though I am not a lawyer, I simply cannot believe that they will be able to get away with this, especially in today's overly litigious day and age. Even VC-1 differed more from H.264 than VP8 does, and even VC-1 didn't manage to escape the clutches of software patents. Until we get some hard evidence that VP8 is safe, I would be extremely cautious."]]>May 21st 2010 12:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/
Go to any Linux based forum and they will tell you about the bright history of Apple's contributions to the open source community.]]>May 21st 2010 12:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/They use alot of open sourced projects to make up osx, but they offer a vast amount of tools and resources so users can learn and develop applications off the open sourced projects.]]>May 21st 2010 12:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/
That makes me think of a song...
"Freedom isn't free... It costs folks like you and me..."]]>May 21st 2010 12:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/Microsoft pays more to use h.264 than it makes in royalties from h.264, so I don't really see why they would have a financial interest in it succeeding.]]>May 21st 2010 12:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/
Sure that may be the case today, but once it is full entrenched as the web video standard, what would prevent them from cranking up the royalty fees?]]>May 21st 2010 12:31PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/
I think this suits the issue quite nicely:

http://xkcd.com/743/]]>May 21st 2010 1:08PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/May 21st 2010 1:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/ahh, ok, thanx! :)]]>May 21st 2010 1:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/
No, Steve Jobs did not say that. http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=377]]>May 21st 2010 2:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/
The reason why I said "So What?" is patent.

Patent should protect creative idea, and encouraging innovation. However, it really makes me sick recently.

What if somebody had a social networking website patent? Nobody can make a social networking website?

Recently I support open-source and royalty-free project. otherwise nobody can building anything in the future.

PS. S U APPL]]>May 21st 2010 4:43PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/May 21st 2010 4:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/May 21st 2010 6:10PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/May 21st 2010 10:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/
Hopefully the EU's Digital Agenda will help coax greedy, power-drunk H.264 patent-holding companies (like Microsoft, Apple and so on) that it is a bad idea to try and extort cash for the right to exchange information over the web (in video or any other formats). I can't help thinking that it was no coincidence that Google announced WebM and VP8 on the very same day that the EU Digital Agenda was announced (which stresses the importance of openness and interoperability, and the importance of avoiding "lock-in"). So I would imagine Google has been talking to the EU, and that there will be pressure to choose an open and free standard for video. This could be done either by standardizing on the VP8 codec, or by pressuring the fat-cat patent holders of MPEG-LA to emulate Google's gesture and offer the H.264 codec -- that they all seem to be so very "attached" to -- to the world for free. Either way, we (meaning the world + Google) win.

There is no reason for people to pay and pay over and again just to produce, host, or view video on the web (which is the present case with H.264; someone somewhere is always paying royalties). Holding the "H.264 hammer" over people's heads, and being able to raise royalty fees, exclude smaller companies from producing/hosting video, or sue companies or people that the patent-holders "do not like" is exactly contrary to what an open web and the EU digital agenda is all about.

pdf at: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/digital-agenda/documents/digital-agenda-communication-en.pdf]]>May 23rd 2010 2:45PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/
YouTube will be moving over to WebM.

More and more partners are signing up and supporting WebM.

WebM is being adopted faster than anything, ever.
Opinions. http://j.mp/google-web-m-format-answered]]>May 24th 2010 1:38AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/May 21st 2010 11:54AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://stopsoftwarepatents.org/
It's ridiculous that the MPEG-LA thinks they can bully anyone who tries to come up with a royalty-free codec solution.]]>May 21st 2010 11:58AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/May 21st 2010 12:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/
All this bullcrap is occurring solely because of the broken patent laws in the US.]]>May 21st 2010 12:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/May 21st 2010 12:59PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/
Google should just do to the US what Hulu does to rest of the world:

"This video is not available in your country due to software patents."

That would be fun! ;-)]]>May 21st 2010 1:47PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/
I think MPEG-LA is a bit misunderstood. In fact, you don't even have to make a deal with MPEG-LA to use H.264, although you would have to make deals then with each of the companies that hold patents for H.264.

MPEG-LA is simply a group that has a deal with all (the important) patent holders for conveniently managing all the royalties at one time.]]>May 21st 2010 2:01PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/May 21st 2010 11:54AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/you mean to say they shouldn't protect their innovation and let everyone get a peace of their hard work? ]]>May 21st 2010 11:56AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/May 21st 2010 12:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/See America needs to get rid of this stupid system of letting people patent Software. Although being a s/w guy myself, I would like protection for my work, the world is moving to open software solutions and its always better to contribute to that than just fight and not provide a concrete solution. ]]>May 21st 2010 12:06PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/May 21st 2010 12:08PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/"Patenting algotirhms is just one of the most stupid things in the world"
you know toilet papers are pretty expensive now days, but it seems to you an Algorithm has no value? it's like saying those that created formulas such as E=mc2 shouldn't get credit for their work... I understand that some Algorithm are worthless but not all...]]>May 21st 2010 12:12PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/May 21st 2010 12:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/The problem is that patents prevent someone independently coming up with an alternative solution/algorithm that is too similar to someone else's, even if they had never seen it and have no prior knowledge of it.]]>May 21st 2010 12:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/Now this would be a smart move...]]>May 21st 2010 12:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/
Of course software needs protection and for that we have Copyright protection. Globally, software is protected through Copyrights. Patent protection of the kind that exists in America is an idiosyncratic feature of the US.

Patent protection was originally devised for the industries that have real physical products for which research & development is a long drawn, expensive affair. Software is different. It does not require intensive research for long periods of time unlike physical products of other industries. Software by nature is evolutionary and can be developed at a rapid pace. Even the 'revolutionary' software products involve mere integration and improvement of existing code. Clearly, software patents have become a tool for impeding innovation rather than encouraging innovation thus defeating the very purpose for which they were created in the first place.

Its time to rethink the intellectual property regime for software in the US.

]]>May 21st 2010 12:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/May 21st 2010 1:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/Yet there can be years of R&D in software as well as hardware. And don't get me started on the amount of research that goes into fundamental sciences that really push the limits.]]>May 21st 2010 4:32PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/
The reason why the MPEG-LA gets itself in a bunch about this type of announcement is b/c there are MANY companies with a stake in the specification. Companies send their researchers to standards meetings in hopes that they will have a winning contribution to the spec. For the company, it means revenue for each decoder sold, so long as their patents find their way into the spec. This process takes years, is very stressful due to politics and is quite expensive in terms of an employee's time and persistence.

In order for an open codec to work, it needs to be competitive to the closed standards in visual quality, compression ratio and ease of transmission. It will also need a big push for it to gain the trust and use of the industry. If broadcasters don't use the codec and websites don't either, it won't matter. Look at Theora, in many ways it is a very good codec, but it has no real traction.

All that said, I do think the MPEG-LA is taking the wrong approach here. If they have a problem, they should go directly to Google and sort it out as two companies. This was Google's bet and it should be their burden. Once again, without the time and effort spent, H.264 wouldn't exist. Also, On2 who designed the VP8 codec was also a business, this codec didn't come out of thin air and without any patents of its own.]]>May 22nd 2010 1:12AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/
With your knowledge of costs associated with H.264, would you say that the various developers have recouped their costs by now? I would hope that they have (otherwise it seems like a money-losing proposition).

In any case, I really do not see why the H.264 patent holders cannot just do as Google did and offer H.264 free to the world (even if it would be a small loss). And by loss, I do not mean "the next 100 years of profits from royalties", as I do not thing it is ethical to force the world's peoples to keep paying over and over again forever for the "privilege" of producing, hosting, or viewing video. MPEG-LA has set itself up to monopolize video information exchange, but Google has shown there is another way besides corporate greed to accomplish this.]]>May 23rd 2010 3:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/May 21st 2010 11:55AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/May 21st 2010 12:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/May 21st 2010 11:56AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/
Wow... welcome to 1945, Google! ]]>May 21st 2010 11:56AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/
They were used frequently during the Google IO keynotes.]]>May 21st 2010 11:59AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/May 21st 2010 12:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/May 21st 2010 12:10PM