Hacker News Reader

Comment by DrSprout | Hacker News Reader

They don't have to indemnify VP8 adopters. VP8 is only patent-free if you agree not to do what MPEG is doing. And while it may be true that MPEG holds some patents that apply to VP8, Google clearly holds some patents that apply to H.264 (because this is a huge mess.)

So they can sue, but it will be an ugly battle, and unlikely to finish before the H.264 patents expire. It's really not a good idea.

View on HN

>it may be true that MPEG holds some patents that apply to VP8, Google clearly holds some patents that apply to H.264 (because this is a huge mess.)

I presume you mean MPEG-LA hold patents over VP8? Which? Also if the reverse is true, why aren't Google having MPEG-LA pay them license fees? Or, perhaps that is what's going to fall out of all this now.

In any case I think all of this clearly shows that the MPEG-LA are all about controlling the web and squeezing every cent out of it possible contrary to their apparently lax attitude [until 2012].

Basically yeah, I'm saying that this is a mutually assured destruction situation. Google having MPEG pay them license fees would validate an MPEG lawsuit against VP8 users.

On the other hand, if MPEG decides to sue, Google will do a counter-claim, refuse to settle, and the thing could easily be tied up in courts until all the relevant patents have expired.

MPEG-LA should just ask Google for half the money they're going to spend this year on development, YouTube conversion, marketing and legal defense for VP8, distribute the windfall to the companies in their patent pool, and submit H.264 to SMPTE or IEEE. Everyone gets a free, high-quality codec, the patent pool gets a big buyout, and Google saves a lot of time and money. It's hard to imagine them actually doing that, though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com