decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
When Patent Pools Attack: Competitive Concerns from the Devolution of MPEG LA | 246 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
When Patent Pools Attack: Competitive Concerns from the Devolution of MPEG LA
Authored by: symbolset on Sunday, March 03 2013 @ 01:07 AM EST

Google acquired the VP8 codec with its developer ON2 in August 2009. VP8 was designed to be a royalty-free video codec by working around all established video compression patents - including the MPEG LA pool - and avoiding patented methods. It's a rare case of software development being deliberately guided by and constrained by patents. WebM is Google's name for the next evolution of the VP8 codec focused on web delivery of video.

WebM is a very good codec but if we don't demand capture devices and editing tools that support it then it will die and we'll be back in the clutches of MPEG LA, who says "you can't do video without violating our patents." MPEG LA doesn't just license their patent pool to codecs and hardware providers - they choose who they will license them to and at what prices, guiding the source of growth in modern video-enabled markets. Which was the original point.

Google can fight the good fight for progress for us, but there comes a point where we have to participate at the point of sale to assist in our own protection. Google is a business and can't guard our access to a codec we can freely use for our family videos forever without we lend a hand. Buy the cam or smartphone that supports VP8 or WebM.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )