Video format wars

Go Google!

I far prefer the idea of an open web, as opposed to a patent-heavy, loyalty-incumbent web.
 
i say go google! if google doesn't budge then apple won't support the format. so tell me who will buy apple if you can't youtube?
move along........
 
Fantastic article!

Instead of just regurgitating facts from other stories/websites/interviews, there is some true insight added here into the matter.

Well done!
 
Before you celebrate:

Google might be trying to shake up video on the web by releasing the WebM video format and VP8 codec under a royalty-free open-source license, but we've already heard the format's uncomfortably close relationship to H.264 might cause some patent concerns, and the MPEG-LA, which licenses the H.264 patents, doesn't seem to be sitting still. CEO Larry Horn told All Things Digital that MPEG-LA is looking into forming a patent pool in order to license vendors who want stay clear of any patent disputes while using WebM -- the idea would be to avoid any patent liability down the road by simply paying for a license now, especially since Google doesn't seem to be promising anything when it comes to protection from lawsuits. We'd wager all this means WebM will go from royalty-free to patent-encumbered just as soon as MPEG-LA gets its paperwork in order -- the same thing essentially happened to Microsoft when it tried to release the VC-1 format royalty-free -- and that means video on the web might soon be right back where it started. We'll see what happens.
Click to expand...

From: http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/

Good luck Google :)
 
The fact that MS and Apple basically force their products on the unknowing masses is one reason they will probably win, just like IE...
 
I know that divx is old but why not adapt and improve that?
Smells like these guys just want to make money :)

oops ok i see, divx also uses h264 codec...
 
Last edited:
DivX is proprietary as well and since the original DivX was an MPEG4-Part 2 (ASP) codec they have now gone for a H.264 MPEG4-Part 10 (AVC) based DivxX codec. So they are in the same camp as M$ and Apple.
 
Then why is Google using h264 for its HTML5 Youtube videos? Which means that Firefox is unsupported for HTML5 Youtube videos?
 
Pilgrim said:
Before you celebrate:

From: http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/googles-webm-video-format-might-not-be-so-free-after-all-says/

Good luck Google :)
Click to expand...
  • They made similar noises when theora gained attention. Nothing came from it.
  • Google paid 133 mil for On2 (VP8 owner). Nobody pays that kind of money without doing a due diligence.
  • The people raising the concerns are from the 264 camp. Their livelihood is threatened. Of course they are going to make claims like this.

It might end up in court. But not with an obvious patent infringement...that would have been caught during the due diligence. So if there is an infringement its a borderline one which will be a huge legal mess to resolve. And who do you think can throw more lawyers & money at legal messes?:D

I'm pretty chuffed about this.:D

EDIT: MPEG-LA consists of a bunch of companies. Google probably has defensive patent pool against at least some of the MPEG-LA members.
 
Last edited:
HavocXphere said:
  • Google paid 133 mil for On2 (VP8 owner). Nobody pays that kind of money without doing a due diligence.
Click to expand...

The problem seems to be with the "field of use" restriction:

http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=2973&blogid=41
Firstly, the new license Google is using for the project is one that's not been submitted to the Open Source Initiative for approval. As it stands it possibly can't be approved due to Google's ironic inclusion of a "field of use" restriction in the patent grant (which is restricted to "this implementation of VP8" rather than the more general grant in the Apache license from which the text started).
That means WebM is not currently open source, despite using a license based on the BSD and Apache licenses. This problem can be readily fixed by Google, and speaking as a member of the OSI Board I'd love to see them submit a templatised version of this license for approval.
Click to expand...

HavocXphere said:
EDIT: MPEG-LA consists of a bunch of companies. Google probably has defensive patent pool against at least some of the MPEG-LA members.
Click to expand...

They don't appear to, and I think they should've taken care of that first:

http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=2973&blogid=41
Despite their claims that WebM was been checked for patent risks when ON2 was acquired, Google has neither made its research available nor does it offer a patent indemnity. Google has expressed extreme confidence in the patent safety of WebM, yet has failed to create a patent pool with its other endorsers and grant free and indemnified licenses to WebM contributors.
Click to expand...
 
google bought on2 knowing that they had counterpatents. brinn and page aren't exactly newcomers to the scene.
the announcement at io shows that they are confident enough to fight back should apple fire their customary salvo.

everything looked even keeled with adobe+google+mozilla+opera vs apple+microsoft on the other side.
with ms supporting both (this was not their standpoint before), it tips the scales in favour of google.
well done google and microsoft.

EDIT: an earlier article on ars technica had some fairly extensive comments wrt the patent issues... i'll try find some references.
 
I hope Google win this war. Then Microsoft can suck on another loss when backing the wrong format.
 
fskmh said:
The problem seems to be with the "field of use" restriction:
Click to expand...
Thats not a problem, its an advantage in this case. We need a royalty free standardized codec. If they license it as the OSI wants then we'll get multiple forked implementations that aren't compatible & then the entire plan is FUBAR. Better that Google keeps all the reins in its (mostly) trustworthy hands for now. Once the format is widely used & everyone knows wtf is going on then it can be licensed more openly.

fskmh said:
They don't appear to, and I think they should've taken care of that first:
Click to expand...
On2 has been developing codec tech for like 20 years. I'm sure they picked up a patent or 2. (EDIT: As murray pointed out above) Google has also acquired a bunch of companies. Most of those were bought for their intellectual property. And WebM is also being pushed by Adobe, AMD & Nvidia. Those 3 have enough patents to sink pretty much anything out there.

I suspect we're in for a long stream of FUD & zero action. Any sane exec is going to realize that disputing this is going to end in a shytstorm. And having to explaining to shareholders why you steered the company into a legal shytstorm against the biggest IT Co out there is the stuff of exec nightmares. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X