I don't understand why so many comments are painting this as bad. Who cares if Google paid a shitload of money to MPEG-LA. The main point is, VP8 is now free for anyone to use, for any reason. Wasn't that the goal?
Companies that are in MPEG-LA won't sue, but there are many "relevant" companies that have not joined. Companies are still being sued (and settling) over patents supposedly infringed by H.264.
The system is a mess. Google are moving in the right direction by eliminating a large potential threat (MPEG-LA), but it's job is not done yet.
Note that Google pushing VP8/9 is trying to promote competition and reduce the licencing costs of H.264/5. This is very similar to what Microsoft (rightly) did before with VC-1.
I don't understand, why would they stand to lose their patent license for WebM?
It says on Wikipedia about WebM that "The project releases WebM related software under a BSD license and all users are granted a worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free patent license" so how can anyone lose the right to that license?
And given that the above WP quote is in fact true, what would Samsung sue over in the first place?
> And well, um, Google has also clearly taken care of a third major H.264 patent holder outside the MPEG-LA - Motorola.
Because, what did they do to Motorola then?
Would I be sort of correct in saying this whole matter is more about power/politics between these big corporations (using patents as leverage) than it is about the actual legality of who is doing what with whose algorithms--in the sense that they do use these legal tactics to attain their goals but the usual goal (justice) is secondary?
That'd explain why it's so confusing to me, laws are usually quite logical (especially the codified type), but politics and power gets really complex really fast (to me).
From http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/ and http://www.webmproject.org/license/bitstream/
> If you or your agent or exclusive licensee institute or order or agree to the institution of patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that this implementation of VP8 or any code incorporated within this implementation of VP8 constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, or inducement of patent infringement, then any patent rights granted to you under this License for this implementation of VP8 shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
And somehow all these corporations (Samsung, Broadcom, etc) believe they have a claim to these patents? But it can at best be only one of them, right?
What are you talking about? Nobody is going to use a software encoder where they need a hardware encoder. The whole point of a hardware encoder is that doing it in software won't fit within your processor consumption or energy budget. And hardware manufacturers will be happy to sell VP8 hardware encoders to anyone who wants to buy one -- especially now that they know they won't have to pay MPEG-LA any royalties to do it.