Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

MPEG LA Says 12 Parties Have Essential WebM Patents

Soulskill posted about 3 years ago | from the dirty-dozen dept.

Google 136

suraj.sun tips this report from the H Online: "The hopes that the VP8 codec at the heart of Google's open source WebM video standard would remain unchallenged in the patent arena are diminishing after the MPEG LA says 12 parties hold patents that its evaluators consider essential to the codec. ... No VP8 patent pool has been formed yet; the MPEG LA says it met with the patent holders in late June and is 'continuing to facilitate that discussion' but the decision to form a pool is up to the patent holders. ... Google responded to the MPEG LA's interview saying it is 'firmly committed to the project and establishing an open codec for HTML5 video' and noting the April launch of the WebM CCL, a community cross-licencing agreement for essential WebM related patents."

cancel ×

136 comments

Shut it down (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36928428)

Let's just turn off the internet and be done with it.

Re:Shut it down (2)

SilverHatHacker (1381259) | about 3 years ago | (#36928488)

Give it a week, we may turn off the US government and be done with all this patent/megacorp crap.

One single sentence says it all. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36928442)

The parties involved are as yet unnamed and MPEG LA told patent analyst Florian Mueller that "confidentiality precludes [MPEG LA] from disclosing the identity of the owners".

This smells like more bullshit extortion.

Re:One single sentence says it all. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36928502)

If software patents continue the way they are going, all patent ownership information should all be made 100% public. Especially in the case of litigation.

Re:One single sentence says it all. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36928666)

All patent information is 100% public. The difficulty is searching through all existing patents to determine which ones are or might be applicable to your work.

Re:One single sentence says it all. (1)

Nikker (749551) | about 3 years ago | (#36929052)

Not really, it is about who thinks you infringe on their patent and how much they can invest in legal action.

Re:One single sentence says it all. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36929114)

I believe the patent ownership information is public. Maybe not in cases where someone other than a publicly traded corporation buys it, but mostly it is. (And I'd support making it fully public to the extent that it's not -- just that's not the issue here.)

The trouble is identifying the set of patents that cover it. Allegedly, 12 companies that hold patents claim (in private meetings) that their patents cover it, but someone else looking at those same patents might not think they do. The only way to know for sure is to wait for a lawsuit -- patents cover what the court decision says they cover, no more, no less. But it would be real nice if MPEG-LA would name the _patents_ so anyone considering WebM could examine those particular ones more carefully. That's what they would do if they cared about deterring patent infringement, rather than blackmailing people with vague threats.

Re:One single sentence says it all. (1)

Goaway (82658) | about 3 years ago | (#36929410)

This smells like more bullshit extortion.

That's a pretty contradictory conclusion, no? To extort anyone, they'd have to show the patents. As long as they don't show them they can not extort anyone.

Re:One single sentence says it all. (2)

mabhatter654 (561290) | about 3 years ago | (#36929870)

This smells like more bullshit extortion.

That's a pretty contradictory conclusion, no? To extort anyone, they'd have to show the patents. As long as they don't show them they can not extort anyone.

This is like saying "something" on your house I thing is mine... But I won't TELL YOU what it is because then yod hand it over or dig out the bill of sale. It's all about "kicking on the door" .. That's extortion.. Look Gogle, that's am awful nice codex you got there.. Shame if somebody started DMCA'ing your followers, "buddy".

Re:One single sentence says it all. (1)

sg_oneill (159032) | more than 2 years ago | (#36930962)

Thats not how it works though. Remember all that SCO bullshit? SCO where sending around extortion letters to companies threatening to sue if they didn't pay up and when the companies would say "on what grounds?" SCO would reply "Thats confidential". Many companies paid up anyway, because its cheaper to just pay them "gtfo and leave us alone" protection racket money than get in some protracted mud wrestle with a fuckwit litigation factory.

Microsoft are currently doing a similar thing , getting companies to pay patent licencing fees on linux whilst not revealing exactly what patents are being licenced.

Its a huge racket, and MPEG-LA (Who btw have *nothing* to do with the motion picture expert group) and the stupid pricks who run the VOIP codec pools are nothing more than predators out to extract rent from other peoples hard work.

The government out act with haste to shut these companies down as rent seeking monopolist scammers who contribute nothing to the economy and actively harm innovation.

Re:One single sentence says it all. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36931368)

Microsoft doesn't seem to have to indicate which patents are being licensed when OEMs give them money regarding android.

Re:One single sentence says it all. (1)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 2 years ago | (#36931724)

That's a pretty contradictory conclusion, no? To extort anyone, they'd have to show the patents. As long as they don't show them they can not extort anyone.

No, to sue someone they need to show the patents. To extort, they just need to make threats.

This is the patent equivalent of vague threats like: If you don't pay us, we are going to hurt you... We have ways of hurting you you can't even imagine..

Re:One single sentence says it all. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36931060)

Maybe it is time MPEG LA were removed from the scene with extreme hostility in an permanent sort of way

Re:One single sentence says it all. (4, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#36931508)

patent analyst Florian Mueller

Sorry, I just felt the need to quote that. It made me laugh so hard I almost dropped my laptop.

Who is Florian Mueller? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36928478)

Who is the Florian Mueller mentioned in the article?

Re:Who is Florian Mueller? (5, Insightful)

pavon (30274) | about 3 years ago | (#36928540)

A professional troll, who keeps posting hatchet-jobs stories about Google/Android only to have them promptly rebuffed.

Re:Who is Florian Mueller? (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#36931512)

Now, be fair to Florian. You make him sound like some partisan hack who only posts wrong stories about Google / Android. Give him his due: he's consistently wrong about everything.

Why has this announcement taken so long? (2)

regrepsnefpoh (1442877) | about 3 years ago | (#36928480)

It was, after all, inevitable. Do they not feel urgently threatened by WebM? (Do they have any reason to feel threatened?)

Re:Why has this announcement taken so long? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36929080)

There's a high-stakes poker game being played here. They don't want to show their hand too early.

If they don't go after WebM, then eventually the H264 licensing falls apart. If they do go after WebM, there will be a challenge to the patents, and they potentially lose everything. So there's some delay and some bluffing going on.

Re:Why has this announcement taken so long? (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#36930378)

Personally, and I'm sure i'll get hate for daring to point out the head guy is kinda nekkid, I don't see why they are getting their panties in a bunch for because WebM sucks the big wet titty. Try running it on a netbook, you are talking a slideshow, whereas everything built in the last few years has H.264 hardware decoding so it plays great. Hell flash plays great as well on netbooks and they are the ones that are gonna win the whole "H.26x VS WebM" debate anyway since they have MUCH better tools for designers and home users.

I'm sorry but just like with Theora and Vorbis WebM is a half baked not as good "kinda sorta" solution. If the FOSS community truly want us to use free codecs then they need to get AHEAD of the game, not try to replace a de facto standard years after with another half baked solution that isn't as good as what we have. I'd suggest working on an ultra efficient Ultra HD codec, something that does higher than BD at decent sizes, and add decent 3D support while you are at it.

But frankly WebM is DOA just like Vorbis and Theora simply because it isn't as good as what we have. It takes more memory and CPU than H.26x, takes larger file sizes for the same apparent quality in picture which equals more expensive for streaming, and while even the bottom of the line netbooks and tablets have H.26x support built in from the looks of it the hardware will have to be made from scratch which means shitcan every device that isn't a multicore. It just isn't worth it for the public who frankly don't give a shit about patents because unlike copyrights (which the assholes are quick to scream DMCA! over) most folks simply will never get bit in the ass by a patent.

Re:Why has this announcement taken so long? (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | more than 2 years ago | (#36930934)

LOL Google+Other Corporations are not the FOSS community. WebM has some serious Corporate Backing. Google is not sitting around on their codec either seriously look at http://blog.webmproject.org/ [webmproject.org] . The only real advantage for H.264 is embedded hardware, and by that I mean smartphones/tablets, I believe Google is quite a player in this area with a little green robot.

Re:Why has this announcement taken so long? (1)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 2 years ago | (#36931642)

I would suggest that the sheer number of videos already encoded in H.264, and the number of devices that support it already is a significant advantage. WebM still doesn't have the same quality as H.264 given the same bandwidth either. Therefore, I would say the only real advantage that WebM has is that it is mostly/sort of/maybe royalty free, which isn't much of an advantage when the royalty is less than $.001 per device.

Re:Why has this announcement taken so long? (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 2 years ago | (#36931304)

You say this now. But this is about the long haul. There is already hardware that supports WebM.

Because most people buy their smartphones with a plan, replacement rates are high.

The numbers say: after 3 years of use, 82.6% will have been replaced (and 18% after the first year).

So if you add it to every Android phone today and the Android phones remain populair, in 3 years almost all Android phones people are using support it in hardware.

Re:Why has this announcement taken so long? (1)

StoneyMahoney (1488261) | more than 2 years ago | (#36931928)

Just because a codec isn't mainstream doesn't mean it's a faliure. Vorbis and Bink video (remember that? still going after 20+ years!) are the darlings of the video gaming world because the license for their decoders are zero and bugger-all respectively. Quality and performance are not the only metrics when selecting a codec for a project like that. Hell, Battlefield 2 used Bink video, as do most of the Command and Conquer games.

WebM may never achieve the ubiquity that H.264 has, but that doesn't automatically mean faliure by any stretch of the imagination. Divx video barely registers as a feature in the consumer video player market but the company ain't doin' so bad. They're tiny compared to Google, so the indications are that something big may well come of this, just not from the direction anyone is expecting.

Google is not the arbiter of "open" (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36928482)

Google has zero credibility when it comes to promises of "open standards." They've hung their entire Android ecosystem out to dry and abandoned its partners to fend for themselves against patent holders.

WebM is most likely toxic and has an uncertain future. Google knows this and that is why they don't offer any type of indemnification to parties who choose to bet on the codec.

This "Google says it's open, therefore it's open" nonsense has to end.

Re:Google is not the arbiter of "open" (0)

Lord Juan (1280214) | about 3 years ago | (#36928998)

Florian? Is that you?

Re:Google is not the arbiter of "open" (4, Insightful)

Qzukk (229616) | about 3 years ago | (#36929010)

that is why they don't offer any type of indemnification to parties who choose to bet on the codec.

No, they don't offer any type of indemnification because patent trolls file bullshit patents like claiming a "buy now" icon in your app infringes on a patent regarding two-way customer feedback. At this rate, whoever has that patent on amusing a cat with a laser pointer has a solid case against WebM. It's impossible to defend against all the bullshit.

If the patent system wants to continue down this road, then the patent laws need to be revised that if anyone brings a patent case against someone, and they're found to not infringe on the patent, the patent holder owes double the defense's court fees and lawyer costs. Triple if the plaintiff tries to bail out after a Markman Hearing told them their patent doesn't mean what they want it to mean, and there's no way in hell that it's being infringed on.

Re:Google is not the arbiter of "open" (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | about 3 years ago | (#36929928)

We need a more "European" system.. Once something is brought before Court, you should not be able to "settle". In both Civil and Criminal court too many cases are known to be losing by a bigger party, just to drain resources from a smaller one.

We need to adjust the system to the "Court's Satisfaction". In a criminal case like OJ or Casey, the resulting perjury and damage charges for losing the case should all be presided by the same court... So the court can punish the actions of it's agents, not just the parties...

In the case of things like all these IP cases, the Court should have the right to keep an interesting case open and RULE on a subject. This whole "drop the case" at the 11th hour because you don't want a losing precedent has to stop.

Re:Google is not the arbiter of "open" (1)

maroberts (15852) | more than 2 years ago | (#36930860)

You are able to settle in any court, European or US. In England, settlements in matters before the court are often accompanied by what is called a Consent Order, where the parties reach a legally binding agreement and the judge signs off on it

Re:Google is not the arbiter of "open" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36931238)

lmftfy:

We need a more "sane" system.

Re:Google is not the arbiter of "open" (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 2 years ago | (#36931354)

'We need a more "European" system' where software patents don't apply. Or atleast a whole lot less, there are always exceptions.

Re:Google is not the arbiter of "open" (0)

bonch (38532) | about 3 years ago | (#36929494)

Prepare to get modbombed for criticizing Google. Meanwhile, the people voting you down won't address the fact that Google provides no indemnification.

Re:Google is not the arbiter of "open" (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36929970)

Neither does MPEG-LA

Re:Google is not the arbiter of "open" (1)

Draek (916851) | more than 2 years ago | (#36930486)

Prepare to get modbombed for criticizing Google.

No, only for spreading old and stale FUD against Google.

Meanwhile, the people voting you down won't address the fact that Google provides no indemnification.

Obviously, since you can't post and mod at the same time. Other people however have addressed the point many times in the past: you don't get patent indemnification *anywhere* else in the industry, and that's because large corporations don't remain large by being naive enough to think that judges are infallible and would never avail the insane demands of a patent troll.

Re:Google is not the arbiter of "open" (1)

Vanders (110092) | more than 2 years ago | (#36931900)

Meanwhile, the people voting you down won't address the fact that Google provides no indemnification.

People will begin to address that fact once the MPEG-LA begin to offer patent indemnification for people using H.264 and all the other codecs they license. Until then, everyone who continues to push this ridiculous double standard can continue to look ridiculous and uninformed.

how about a less-efficient free codec? (1)

davidwr (791652) | about 3 years ago | (#36928560)

If Google and others were to buy out or develop patent-free less-efficient codecs that get the job done, AND push them in preference to non-free codecs, we could have the benefits of widely-used free codecs, albeit with a bit of inefficiency.

Re:how about a less-efficient free codec? (1)

jimpop (27817) | about 3 years ago | (#36928692)

And if Google did do that there would be people who would cry and complain for entirely different reasons. Google knows that they can't please all the people all of the time, and I'm pretty sure they are ok with that.

Re:how about a less-efficient free codec? (1)

arkenian (1560563) | more than 2 years ago | (#36930398)

And if Google did do that there would be people who would cry and complain for entirely different reasons. Google knows that they can't please all the people all of the time but most of them will use the product anyhow, and I'm pretty sure they are ok with that.

FTFY

Re:how about a less-efficient free codec? (1)

jimpop (27817) | more than 2 years ago | (#36930580)

Well yes, that was sort of implied as Google doesn't keep underperforming products around long.

Re:how about a less-efficient free codec? (4, Insightful)

arose (644256) | about 3 years ago | (#36928712)

That's what Google did, they bought On2 (who had been making codecs for 10 years or so without getting sued). I'll believe it when a court rules that a patent actually applies, there is too much for MPEG LA to gain from FUDing VP8 and almost nothing from having an actual patent pool.

And let's please remember (4, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 3 years ago | (#36929128)

Google checked all this out. Before they bought On2, they got to see all their IP, all their sutff (under NDA of course) as is standard practice for buyouts. Also, after they bought them, they took some time to turn VP8 in to WebM. During that time you really think they didn't do a through checking of patents that might apply? Also consider that Google is the best of the best at searching and data mining. They probably found everything.

My bet is they concluded that any or all of the following are true:

1) WebM does not infringe on any of the legit video patents out there.

2) That any patent WebM does infringe on is one that can be showed to be invalid via prior art.

3) That anyone who has a valid patent, Google has a more damaging counter patent(s) and thus they'll have to back down.

I cannot believe that Google ran in to this without doing good research. I also find it easy to believe that MPEG-LA is grasping at straws, particularly given how long it has taken and the lack of specifics.

Re:And let's please remember (4, Interesting)

hardtofindanick (1105361) | about 3 years ago | (#36929402)

WebM does not infringe on any of the legit video patents out there.

A company with the caliber of On2 to hold patents that do not infringe on h264 and still claim to reach h264 quality is hard to believe.

That any patent WebM does infringe on is one that can be showed to be invalid via prior art.

Video compression is a mature area and you have to fight teeth and nails get your IP in the standard (I attended the VCEG/MPEG standardization meetings for h264, I witnessed the blood first hand). The IP holders are huge companies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG_LA [wikipedia.org] , and they have very decent research labs.These guys are not fucking around, they do their patent research before fighting to push their IP in.

That anyone who has a valid patent, Google has a more damaging counter patent(s) and thus they'll have to back down.

That sounds like pure fantasy.

I also find it easy to believe that MPEG-LA is grasping at straws, particularly given how long it has taken and the lack of specifics.

MPEG-LA does not seem to know what to do with h264 either. They keep pushing the "end of free license" period. We are safe until 2016 for now I believe. That is about when h265 should be finalized.

Re:And let's please remember (1)

westlake (615356) | about 3 years ago | (#36930072)

MPEG-LA does not seem to know what to do with h264 either

There are 1,027 AVC/H.264 Licensees [mpegla.com]

Digital television. Broadcast, cable and satellite distribution. Big content. Disney. Blu-Ray. Netflix. Medical imaging. Industrial and militray applications.

Someone seems to have a clue.

While WebM remains little more than mediocre YouTube transcode playable in a browser.

Re:And let's please remember (2)

Vanders (110092) | more than 2 years ago | (#36931914)

A company with the caliber of On2 to hold patents that do not infringe on h264 and still claim to reach h264 quality is hard to believe.

On2 were developing codecs long before H.264 was developed. On2 have never been an MPEG-LA member: it is equally possible that On2 hold patents that H.264 infringe upon.

Re:And let's please remember (1)

TheSync (5291) | about 3 years ago | (#36929450)

During that time you really think they didn't do a through checking of patents that might apply?

Two possibilities: 1) Google is huge and arrogant and maybe they didn't do a great job at this and/or 2) given the complexity of modern video codecs, it is tough to do a good job of working this out, especially given that VP8's definition has mainly been source code.

Re:And let's please remember (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36929462)

I cannot believe that Google ran in to this without doing good research.

Then you are extremely naive.

Re:And let's please remember (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#36931534)

During that time you really think they didn't do a through checking of patents that might apply?

Oh, absolutely. For two reasons. First, because Google has a long track record of completely ignoring anyone else's IP. Second, because doing such a search is REALLY hard. What do you search for? Break the algorithm down into small steps and then see if each is patented? But patents can't be easily searched for algorithms - they don't, for example, require a pseudocode representation of the algorithm in a consistent format. You're taking a bit of code, and then searching terabytes of text to see if any patents include an obfuscated English description of any parts of that code.

Re:And let's please remember (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 2 years ago | (#36931980)

3) That anyone who has a valid patent, Google has a more damaging counter patent(s) and thus they'll have to back down.

This is where GPL v3.0 enters the game. Most people are quite Ok with the h.264 patents, except that you can't write a codec that is GPL v3.0 licensed, because you can't have GPL v.3.0 code that implements a patented invention, unless you have a patent license that covers the code and any GPL licensed copies or derivatives.

If someone has a valid patent that WebM is infringing on, and is convinced by threats from Google not to sue, that doesn't make a difference - the code would be infringing and cannot be distributed under GPL v3.0.

Re:how about a less-efficient free codec? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36930202)

Except this was EXACTLY what they did with WebM. Most likely Google has done due diligence and determined before buying On2 that they either had done enough design-arounds to skirt MPEG-LA patents, and had enough of their own patents to fight back against potential threats. The fact that it's taken this long for MPEG-LA to even start the FUD machine means that they don't have On2 essential patents.

Re:how about a less-efficient free codec? (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | more than 2 years ago | (#36930388)

But this is the point... Google did build this from what they believed was a patent-free, or at least patents they thought they has rights to... But MPEG-LA is such a massive licensing firm, they'll FIND somebody in their group with something Google could possibly infringe on. The group has gone from being a way for big companies to AVOID lawsuits, to a group of old guys that beats up new kids with 20-year-old crap.

Google is of the "don't ask, charge ahead" approach to patents. Google is throwing CS Masters and PhDs at this stuff .. Part of patents is proving how you got from A to B... Parent Courts tend to favor those that can show their own work, even if it is close to something else patented.. Because that's the "spirit" of the patent system.

Re:how about a less-efficient free codec? (1)

Pinky's Brain (1158667) | more than 2 years ago | (#36931620)

All the patent pool members are scared to get one of their gravy train patents to be ruled invalid, finding one without some below the table (illegal) pay off to to make the risk of invalidation worth taking is not at all easy.

Re:how about a less-efficient free codec? (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 2 years ago | (#36931860)

The problem is, the only codecs that are pretty much guaranteed to be free are early versions of MPEG1, and MJPEG.

Both of which, in 2011, are downright awful codecs.

(Although, my digital camera shoots MJPEG...)

Good News for Everyone (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36928684)

This is great news! Hopefully this WebM fad will end and we can go back to using a format that isn't shit like H.264

Re:Good News for Everyone (1)

leoplan2 (2064520) | about 3 years ago | (#36928726)

Astroturfing much?

Re:Good News for Everyone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36928762)

I too would welcome a format that isn't shit like H.264. Preferably something we can all use.

Speaking of WebM (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 3 years ago | (#36928698)

When is Google pulling h.264 support out of Chrome? I just did a new install on a previously Chrome-less Windows box, and it handled an h.264-only <video> element just fine.

I knew the Mac version of Chrome still played h.264, but I'm not sure if it's relying on its own internals or on the OS in that case.

Re:Speaking of WebM (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36928836)

When is Google pulling h.264 support out of Chrome? I just did a new install on a previously Chrome-less Windows box, and it handled an h.264-only <video> element just fine.

I knew the Mac version of Chrome still played h.264, but I'm not sure if it's relying on its own internals or on the OS in that case.

Chromium not Chrome. Chromium is the open source version, which comes without things like built in pdf readers, h.264 support and built in flash.

Re:Speaking of WebM (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 3 years ago | (#36929240)

Chromium not Chrome. Chromium is the open source version, which comes without things like built in pdf readers, h.264 support and built in flash.

While I realize the post was in the Chromium Blog, the January blog post [chromium.org] says h.264 support is going to be removed from Chrome "to make it consistent with the codecs already supported by the open Chromium project."

Windows 7 has h.264 playback built in (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 3 years ago | (#36928912)

And previous versions of Windows can have it added with codec packs. Chrome could well use the media layer in Windows for playback of any formats it does not support internally (it would make sense to do so).

Re:Windows 7 has h.264 playback built in (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 3 years ago | (#36929210)

I did the test on an XP box that did not previously have Chrome installed - the h.264 video played just fine.

And yes, I know it was h.264 because I put both the video and the page together.

Re:Windows 7 has h.264 playback built in (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 2 years ago | (#36931436)

h.264 hasn't been removed from Chrome yet. So it is really nice you tested it, but it was to early.

Is it a codec or a fake antivirus? (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 years ago | (#36929488)

And previous versions of Windows can have it added with codec packs.

How many fake antivirus "products" masquerade as codec packs?

Chrome could well use the media layer in Windows for playback of any formats it does not support internally (it would make sense to do so).

That would have two drawbacks:

  • Web developers testing their web sites would easily make the mistake of assuming that all other users can play the same video formats that the developer can play. But Windows Media in Windows XP, Windows Media in Windows Vista Home Basic, Windows Media in Windows 7 Starter, and GStreamer in GNU/Linux don't come with an H.264 decoder.
  • Codecs running in the browser's process might disclose or corrupt the browser's memory.
  • Even codecs that run in a separate wrapper process, as Firefox does with its plugin container, run the risk of end user confusion between legitimate codec packs and fake antivirus software.

Re:Speaking of WebM (1)

inglorion_on_the_net (1965514) | more than 2 years ago | (#36930932)

I just did a new install on a previously Chrome-less Windows box, and it handled an h.264-only <video> element just fine.

And you're complaining about this?

Re:Speaking of WebM (1)

tyrione (134248) | more than 2 years ago | (#36930968)

When is Google pulling h.264 support out of Chrome? I just did a new install on a previously Chrome-less Windows box, and it handled an h.264-only <video> element just fine.

I knew the Mac version of Chrome still played h.264, but I'm not sure if it's relying on its own internals or on the OS in that case.

During the rise of the WebM debate Google yanked H.264 from Chrome for Linux and a few months later added it back. They have continued it, but don't include MPEG-4 support.

Chrome version: 14.0.835.8 dev:

  1. H.264 support
  2. Ogg Theora support
  3. WebM support

This has been supported for at least the past 6 months.

Re:Speaking of WebM (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 2 years ago | (#36931434)

Probably after Chrome 13, AFAIK.

Maybe more importantly, when will Youtube automatically use HTML5/WebM when the browser supports it.

As I understand it, all new uploads are already converted WebM.

3 months ago Youtube had already converted 30% of the videos, which make up 99% of all views.

At the last Google I/O someone working on the new Youtube 'player' mentioned embedded worked and it looks like they are now very close to releasing it.

No mention of Apple? (1, Informative)

npsimons (32752) | about 3 years ago | (#36928972)

Why no mention of Apple? Or Microsoft? They are both members of MPEG-LA [wikipedia.org] , not to mention other sleazy organizations [wikipedia.org] .

Re:No mention of Apple? (1)

ray_mccrae (78654) | about 3 years ago | (#36929222)

because apple and microsoft are not major members. In fact now that you mention it, this is one of the least sensationalist headlines i've seen on slashdot for a awhile. Hope the trend continues.

Re:No mention of Apple? (2)

westlake (615356) | about 3 years ago | (#36929418)

Why no mention of Apple? Or Microsoft? They are both members of MPEG-LA, not to mention other sleazy organizations.

There are about thirty AVC/H.264 licensors, most of them global industrial giants like Mitsubishi, Philips and Toshiba. AVC/H.264 Licensors [mpegla.com]

There are about 1,030 H.264 licensees. AVC/H.264 Licensees [mpegla.com]

H.264 is theatrical production, Blu Ray, broadcast, cable and sattelite distribution. Medical, industrial and military applications. There is no such thing as an HDTV set or set top box that doesn't support H.264.

WebM is, well, WebM.

Google is an H.264 licensee. Google is hedging its bets.

Re:No mention of Apple? (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 2 years ago | (#36930346)

Why not indeed ? People like to paint Google as some kind of altruistic entity but look at who they are taking on here, their direct competitors. Google are the Microsoft of the new millennium: they have a very profitable core business in search and advertising that could possibly be threatened from developments in other markets so they take on all those companies and go into the phone business, the browser business, the netbook business, social networking, TV streaming, etc. All to keep others from having the power to turn away those eyeballs from Google.

Granted, they have a very novel way of destabilizing the competition using open source like that. And I'm not knocking it, there has undoubtably been a net benefit to consumers from both the competition and the open sourced software. But lets stay real here, how much money would Google invest in V8 if MPEG LA folded, what would be the business case for it? Likewise Android, if it became really dominant it would go stale quicker than you could say "not our core business." Apple and Microsoft aren't the only sleazy corporations here, they are ALL playing a sleazy game.

Re:No mention of Apple? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#36931446)

the sad thing about android is that due to numerous patent licensing issues, no new manufacturer can actually enter the market with it. it's all just the same old companies and their few chosen models, all aping each other in form and function. no innovation, no nothing.

sure, anyone can order chips that run it, whole 3g capable socs. but you can only sell them in low numbers or you'll be spanked by patent police and you'll end up paying 60 bucks or more for the licenses per phone. that's a LOT when in two years now your usual galaxy S equivalent hardware is going to go into phones otherwise costing hundred bucks at retail.

Who does this surprise? (1, Interesting)

Telvin_3d (855514) | about 3 years ago | (#36929016)

Who does this surprise? And I'm not talking about patent trolls or other attacks just looking to make a quick buck. I mean who is surprised that WebM steps all over patents associated with h.264 and other video standards? Anyone?

The one and only argument I have ever seen in favor of WebM is that it doesn't have licensing restrictions. That's it. From a code point of view h.264 is at least as open source seeing as many of the best tools and compressors are (and always have been) open and in many cases free. WebM doesn't do things significantly different from a technical point of view or an implementation point of view. It is substantially the same technology.

So if you have two projects that are effectively identical, but one has licensing restrictions on some streaming content and the other doesn't. Why would patents that cover one not cover the other?

This was always a stupid, meaningless fight. Everyone big enough to ever care about future licensing issues is big enough that it is meaningless. Everyone else is too small to bother. And all the implementation and tools have been Open Source from the start.

This stuff is like the JPG and GIF patents. Made zero real world impact and by the time everyone was finished arguing over them the patents had already expired. This is meaningless in-fighting.

Re:Who does this surprise? (5, Insightful)

steveha (103154) | about 3 years ago | (#36929186)

who is surprised that WebM steps all over patents associated with h.264

Objection. The correct sentence here is "who is surprised that MPEG-LA claims that WebM steps all over patents controlled by MPEG-LA".

Given that WebM was specifically designed to not infringe any patents, I for one would be very surprised if it "steps all over" a large number of patents.

Sadly, I would not be surprised if Google lost a lawsuit over some patent that someone claims covers WebM. But that's because there are so many patents, and stuff happens in lawsuits.

The one and only argument I have ever seen in favor of WebM is that it doesn't have licensing restrictions.

Isn't that enough?

The basic pitch for WebM is "not as good as H.264, but you are free to use it". If you need the best possible video encoder and are willing to abide the the licensing restrictions and fee schedules of H.264, you use H.264. If you are Debian, and you only ship free software that isn't patent-encumbered, you ship WebM and not H.264. This isn't rocket surgery.

From a code point of view h.264 is at least as open source seeing as many of the best tools and compressors are (and always have been) open and in many cases free. WebM doesn't do things significantly different from a technical point of view or an implementation point of view. It is substantially the same technology.

Your point about H.264 being available in open source is accurate, but pointless. Your second point is correct if we agree that the word "substantially" covers a lot of differences. The differences make H.264 the better encoder.

So if you have two projects that are effectively identical, but one has licensing restrictions on some streaming content and the other doesn't. Why would patents that cover one not cover the other?

Because patents aren't judged by this "substantially" word you used. Patents cover specific things. On2 seems to have studied patents to figure out what they couldn't do, and found ways to do things that work almost as well without being covered by the patents.

The dangers here are that On2 overlooked a patent or otherwise made a mistake; or that a court would rule that On2 skated too close to the line. There is no danger that a court will say "WebM is substantially doing the same thing as H.264, so all the H.264 patents apply." You didn't really mean to imply the situation was that simple, did you?

This stuff is like the JPG and GIF patents. Made zero real world impact and by the time everyone was finished arguing over them the patents had already expired.

There is one major difference: the patents on H.264 are not just about to expire. I did a quick Google search and found that you would have to wait until 2025 to use H.264 for free.

If you use a patented format, you have to get a patent license. The owners of the patent license get to dictate the terms of the license.

Google, who owns and runs YouTube, doesn't want to build its business around H.264, because then when it is time to renew the licenses, the terms or fees could become Draconian.

Google doesn't want to build YouTube around an old, lousy video coder that happens to be free, because the users won't be happy their videos load slowly and look horrible; and Google has to pay for the bandwidth.

So: WebM. Not as good as H.264, but nobody can use it to tell Google "you now have to give us big large huge royalties on your use of this video coder". They can predict their future licensing costs (zero), and their bandwidth costs aren't horrible and the user experience is good.

WebM benefits everyone except for the people who own H.264 patents. And they will still make money on H.264; they just won't be the only game in town anymore. They want very much to be the only game in town and charge whatever they feel like charging. I don't understand why you are so keen on this idea.

steveha

Re:Who does this surprise? (3, Interesting)

TheSync (5291) | about 3 years ago | (#36929266)

Given that WebM was specifically designed to not infringe any patents, I for one would be very surprised if it "steps all over" a large number of patents.

WebM was not developed within an ISO recognized standards development organization. It never had a hope of being patent-free: the process was not open, not due-process, and for that reason and others the folks who might have been willing to donate their IP to the effort were not properly motivated.

There is one, and only one video codec that was developed in an open standards process specifically to be non-royalty, and that is JPEG 2000 Part 1 aka ISO/IEC 15444-1. During the development process of JPEG 2000 Part 1, an agreement was reached with over 20 large organizations holding many patents to allow use of their intellectual property in connection with JPEG 2000 without payment of license fees or royalties.

That is a major reason why JPEG 2000 is the basis of Digital Cinema.

Re:Who does this surprise? (3, Interesting)

theweatherelectric (2007596) | about 3 years ago | (#36929786)

WebM was not developed within an ISO recognized standards development organization. It never had a hope of being patent-free: the process was not open, not due-process, and for that reason and others the folks who might have been willing to donate their IP to the effort were not properly motivated.

Neither was Vorbis. Vorbis has been used in huge projects by huge companies for over a decade. Why has it remained royalty-free? Why doesn't VP8 similarly have "a hope" of remaining royalty-free? Until the MPEG LA or one of the companies that allegedly hold patents essential to VP8 have something substantive to show there is no proof that VP8 infringes any patents. All the MPEG LA is doing now is what they've always done since the launch of WebM: scaremongering.

Re:Who does this surprise? (1)

Telvin_3d (855514) | about 3 years ago | (#36929386)

Given that WebM was specifically designed to not infringe any patents, I for one would be very surprised if it "steps all over" a large number of patents.

Except that WebM wasn't designed to be patent free. It was designed to be license free. Neither WebM or the related VP8 or Matroska projects were ever designed to be patent free. They were all built around free licenses, not patents. Not the same thing at all.

Under current rules, I doubt that it is possible to create an image or video format that is patent free. Doesn't mean I am defending the current situation, but it is the reality on the ground at the moment, and likely for the foreseeable future.

WebM is not patent free. It was never patent free. In this day and age of lawyers storming the battlements with swords and giant axes I don't think ANYTHING is patent free. And there is no way the relevant patents get globally licensed without WebM ending up in exactly the same terms as h.264.

Re:Who does this surprise? (1)

steveha (103154) | about 3 years ago | (#36929810)

WebM wasn't designed to be patent free.

Very well, then: WebM was designed to be free of patents other than the On2 patents that Google owned and freely licensed to allow the use of WebM.

Does the above statement meet your required level of precision?

Neither WebM or the related VP8 or Matroska projects were ever designed to be patent free. They were all built around free licenses, not patents. Not the same thing at all.

If any software uses patented technology, the patent owner can control the use of that software. Those projects most certainly did intend to avoid using any patented ideas.

I was using the phrase "patent free" informally, intending to communicate the idea that WebM is "free" of any "patents" that would require the user to get a patent license. I apologize that this did not meet your required level of precision.

Under current rules, I doubt that it is possible to create an image or video format that is patent free.

This is pretty much the contention of MPEG-LA. More specifically, they claim it is impossible to make any video format that doesn't infringe on one or more patents from their patent pool.

Google on the other hand spent $100 million for On2, spent months presumably vetting the patents situation, and released WebM. Google, and presumably Google's lawyers, do not seem to agree with your statement. I am hoping they are correct.

steveha

Re:Who does this surprise? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#36931560)

Except that WebM wasn't designed to be patent free. It was designed to be license free

VP8 was designed to be patent free. On2 took H.264 and then rewrote all of the bits that were patented to be subtly different in the hope of avoiding any patents, except for the ones that they owned. I don't know what you mean by 'license free' - VP8 is covered by two licenses, a copyright license on the source code and a patent license. Both grant royalty free use of the On2 code and patents that Google purchased.

Re:Who does this surprise? (1)

John Betonschaar (178617) | about 3 years ago | (#36929400)

Objection. The correct sentence here is "who is surprised that MPEG-LA claims that WebM steps all over patents controlled by MPEG-LA".

Others [multimedia.cx] have already predicted VP8 would run into patent issues.

Anyone who knows even the least bit about video codec technology can tell you that it's virtually impossible to design an advanced video codec that does not infringe on any video coding patents, which isn't surprising if you consider the technology involved is decidedly non-trivial, and took over 3 decades to develop. H264 is currently the most advanced standard for video coding, but it didn't materialize out of thin air either: it simply builds on the concepts you'll see in MPEG 1, 2, 4 and so forth.

The only codec I can imagine that does not violate any H624 patents would either be incredibly crappy, or downright revolutionary. I know for a fact that VP8 is not the latter.

Re:Who does this surprise? (1)

tangent3 (449222) | more than 2 years ago | (#36930454)

So Google and On2 know nothing about video codec technology?

Re:Who does this surprise? (1)

Pinky's Brain (1158667) | more than 2 years ago | (#36931648)

He didn't even read the patents ... he compared features.

He is relatively young and way too busy to try to examine the research background for each of those features. He should never have judged something as validly patented in the H.264 patent pool just because he saw it first in H.264 ... it was a stupid thing to do (look at the intra prediction redaction) and a misuse of his own reputation.

Doctrine of equivalents (2)

tepples (727027) | about 3 years ago | (#36929518)

patents aren't judged by this "substantially" word you used

"Substantially" in patentese is called the doctrine of equivalents [wikipedia.org] . Perhaps that's what you were thinking of when you mentioned the possibility "that On2 skated too close to the line."

Re:Doctrine of equivalents (1)

arose (644256) | more than 2 years ago | (#36930414)

I wish this worked the other way as well. But no one seems to have problems with granting patents that do something substantially the same way as prior art.

New rule (4, Insightful)

Bengie (1121981) | about 3 years ago | (#36929108)

They should make a new rule. If you don't immediately(reasonable amount of time, 1-2 months?) sue another company once you found out they've made a product based on your patent, you give up any rights to said patent.

You shouldn't be able to sit on it and wait for it to be more "lucrative" to sue.

Re:New rule (5, Informative)

steveha (103154) | about 3 years ago | (#36929230)

You shouldn't be able to sit on it and wait for it to be more "lucrative" to sue.

I am not a lawyer, but I believe this is what you wished for; it's already part of the law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity) [wikipedia.org]

steveha

Burden of proof (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 years ago | (#36929662)

But on whom is the burden of proof that the patent holder sat on his rights? If on the alleged infringer, then a small business may not be able to afford to claim this equitable defense.

Re:New rule (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#36931584)

That doesn't really do what he wanted, at least in the USA. You may not claim for any damages that occurred between the period when you noticed infringement and the time when you notified the infringing party. You can claim for damages that occurred before and after. If I'm selling 100 widget/day when you notice I'm infringing and you ignore it until I'm selling 10,000 widgets/day then you can still claim (for example) $1/widget in licenses for patent infringement. If you don't sign the licensing deal, then I can claim this plus some extra amount when I take you to court. By that stage, it's probably a lot more difficult for you to modify the design to avoid the patent than it was when you were selling 100.

Re:New rule (1)

ezzzD55J (697465) | about 3 years ago | (#36929246)

+1

Re:New rule (1)

IGnatius T Foobar (4328) | about 3 years ago | (#36929934)

They should make a new rule. If you don't immediately(reasonable amount of time, 1-2 months?) sue another company once you found out they've made a product based on your patent, you give up any rights to said patent.

You shouldn't be able to sit on it and wait for it to be more "lucrative" to sue.

That's essentially what the doctrine of Laches [wikipedia.org] (a form of Estoppel [wikipedia.org] is all about. The plaintiff knew about a potential patent violation but sat on it for some length of time until the defendant actually committed themselves to a position where a lawsuit would be more harmful.

This is going to be part of Google's case against Oracle [groklaw.net] after having uncovered Jonathan Schwartz's blog entry congratulating Google on using Java technology.

It's a tough case to argue but it can be done.

Told you so (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 3 years ago | (#36929858)

For all those bashing Mozilla and Firefox for not supporting H.264 I have to say HA.

Firefox did the right thing for turning it down regardless if it is part of HTML 5 due to patent reasons. Anyone saying "No, the MPAA are nice guys who would never sue us and the Firefox users are ideological socialists" have been proven that patents indeed suck.

And that is how patents are promoting progress. (2)

devent (1627873) | about 3 years ago | (#36929924)

And that is how patents are promoting progress. A company makes a clean room afford to come up with a new algorithm and tries in it's best to identify and not use any patents, and another company buys it and is releasing the algorithm under a free license to improve the life of everyone.

The only way to advance in the field of video codes is a) be the lucky company which is in the patent pool or b) wait until all patents expire. How is that suppose to promote the technology again?

Re:And that is how patents are promoting progress. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36931236)

In their current form, patents are simply enabling corporations in the IT business to squat on markets like old corporations could do in real life markets.
They will occasionally let a little guy win to show the world that their propaganda is the truth, the net effect is that little guys are screwed like it always has been.

Patents could be made to protect innovators, solutions of problems that can be reached by clean room implementations should not be upheld in patent litigation.

Re:And that is how patents are promoting progress. (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#36931592)

A company makes a clean room afford to come up with a new algorithm

I'm assuming you mean effort when you say afford, but even then it's wrong. On2 did not make a clean room effort. VP8 is H.264 + some tweaks to avoid patents. They took the research of others and made some minor adjustments to avoid paying royalties. Whether you think the people doing the research should be compensated, or whether patents are a good form of compensating them, is still an issue, but let's not pretend that the On2 engineers sat on their own without access to the H.264 and worked out a completely independent design.

Re:And that is how patents are promoting progress. (1)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 2 years ago | (#36931768)

Since VP8 is somewhat older than H.264 I find that chain of events vert hard to believe... In fact I considered it logically impossible.

More likely both formats are based on the same research. Real research done by real researchers, who usually work for universities and publish their research royalty free to meet their published articles count, and to advance their academic career. Just like 99% of all genuine advancements in computer science are made.

Re:And that is how patents are promoting progress. (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#36931824)

Since VP8 is somewhat older than H.264 I find that chain of events vert hard to believe... In fact I considered it logically impossible.

Really? From Wikipedia [wikimedia.org] :

The standardization of the first version of H.264/AVC was completed in May 2003

Also from Wikipedia [wikimedia.org] :

The development of the codec[VP8] was announced by On2 Technologies on September 13, 2008 to replace its predecessor, VP7.

And again [wikimedia.org] :

On2 Technologies announced TrueMotion VP7 in January 2005.[1] The public release of VP7 codec software was available in March 2005

And going further [wikimedia.org] :

The VP6 codec was introduced in May 2003.[1] In October 2003, On2 officially released its TrueMotion VP6 codec.[2]

So, VP6 was developed at the same time the final H.264 standard was published. VP7 and VP8 were developed years later.

MPEG2 patents going bye bye (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36930194)

Last ditch effort by a failing company...

Since the Mpeg2 patents are running out of time and that is Mpegla's bread and butter they need to find a new round of patents to keep their 44 employees fed.

How attitude has changed (1)

inglorion_on_the_net (1965514) | more than 2 years ago | (#36930972)

It's interesting how attitudes have changed.

I remember how, in the 1990s, the Unisys LZW patent [wikipedia.org] was such a big deal that an alternative to GIF [wikipedia.org] (PNG [wikipedia.org] ) was created, promoted, and support for it added to web browsers.

Now, when we're talking about video in the 2010s, software patents are apparently such a non-issue that many people advocate going with H.264, despite patent restrictions. This while court battles are being fought over patents by some of the same companies who hold H.264 patents. Personally, I say we should have at least one standardized, supported video format that is not patent-encumbered. That way, we have somewhere to run if need be, and perhaps that will actually prevent the patent holders from going after us. It seems to have worked so far.

Re:How attitude has changed (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 2 years ago | (#36931454)

The companies* involved in the W3C could not agree on a video codec, I still wonder if Google had completed their aqusition of On2 before the W3C discussions, would it have mattered ?

Actually the IMG-tag also does not have anything in the specifications about BMP, XPM, JPEG, GIF or PNG so it isn't all that strange.

* Of which some are obviously members of the MPEG LA, like Apple and Microsoft if I remember correctly.

Re:How attitude has changed (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#36931608)

The situation isn't totally equivalent. PNG was a lot better than GIF. It supported more colours and a full alpha channel and, usually, smaller files. Most people didn't adopt PNG because it was unpatented, they adopted it because it was better. GIF had no advantages over PNG other than support for animations - and people still use GIFs for simple animations today...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...