sounds like you think WebM is not patent encumbered. that's actually an open question. the only thing Google has done is sent users back into Adobe's arms for h.264 playback.
Money quote, from the conclusion: "With regard to patents, VP8 copies too much from H.264 for comfort, no matter whose word is behind the claim of being patent-free. This doesn't mean that it’s sure to be covered by patents, but until Google can give us evidence as to why it isn’t, I would be cautious." There are examples given throughout the post.
This comment in response to that post makes an interesting point; the most similar bits are likely the most carefully vetted, and may be written deliberately to avoid patent infringement. Patents on standards can be very narrow; as long they cover exactly what's in the spec, then any implementer of the standard still has to pay up:
"Patents are about _details_ so the mere fact that something does something like something else, isn’t necessarily something at all.
As we’ve pointed out before, many codec patents are exceptionally easy to work around: They specify every little detail because it makes it _much_ easier to get through the examination but doesn’t harm the patent’s ability to read on the final standard because the standard specifics exactly the patented behaviour.
D_S, for all his undeniable H.264 experience isn’t an expert on patents or even the H.264 patents. We can assume that in cases where VP8 looks similar to H.264 those would have been exactly the cases where care was taken to differ in the right places. I’d expect the primary risks for VP8 to be anywhere _but_ there."
more at http://blog.gingertech.net/2010/05/20/vp8-adobe-is-the-key-t....
Your patent FUD: any software can be potentially sued for patent infringement. You can't prove the opposite. See Oracle vs. Google on Java patents and a number of other examples.
Pointing that out about WebM software specifically is not insightful. You can make the exact "but can you prove it doesn't infringe patents" statements about any software product.
There are, however, reasons to believe that WebM does indeed avoids patents.
1. It's a technology that has been created and commercially licensed by On2 for years. In all those years no one sued On2.
2. On2 licensees (including Adobe) were confident enough about the technology being patent-free to pay good money for the license.
3. Google, presumably, is not stupid and didn't pay hundreds of millions of dollars without doing a technology evaluation, including potential patent issues.
4. Even if someone sues WebM, Google has a better chance than most to defend it.
So while no one can ever satisfy people demanding impossible proof of WebM being safe from patent threats, there are very good reasons to believe it is indeed safe.
2. See #1, they licensed VP6 not VP8/WebM.
3. No doubt!
4. Google does not indemnify users of WebM (http://www.webmproject.org/license/software/). If someone were to sue you for WebM, it's not an attack on Google and they have no reason to pick up your legal bill. Sure, it's not unreasonable to assume that if many large companies adopt a technology it's safe to use, but it doesn't protect you from being attacked individually.
Armchair legal hand waving goes both ways.
EDIT: Thanks, I guess the answer is no...