|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 15 2013 @ 06:29 PM EDT |
Deliberate double entendre.
> First, Google intends to submit VP8 to MPEG for standardization.
> Second, Google intends to propose VP8 be selected as the
> "mandatory to implement" codec in the RTCWEB group at IETF
2nd first, the IETF represents the non-standardised open web.
Standardisation of VP8 via MPEG goes headfirst down the rabbit
hole of SEPs. Yes there are known patents for VP8, and Google
has published an "indemnification" for users of those patents.
I expect existing MPEG patent holders to make this hard for
Google, possibly by asking for re-examination of VP8 patents.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 15 2013 @ 06:42 PM EDT |
or would have been for the last story, as in,
are Standards Essential Patents an oxymoron?
Consider a Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art,
who purchases and reads a copy of ISO/IEC 14496-10,
goes home and over a couple of weekends (OK more like
a couple of years with help from around the globe)
builds a codec and releases it under GPL-2 and calls it
libx264.
Your move.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
