marksman
macrumors 603
Yes.
Jobs Responds to Google's WebM Video Standard Announcement as Patent Questions Begin to Surface
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes.
It's called "webm" for a reason , it has no intent on challenging H.264 for things like optical media or camcorders or in broadcasting,just like its name says,it's meant for watching videos on the web.
Hal Itosis
macrumors 6502a
There are several really good posts here, thank goodness. Wish i had some new technical (or legal) tidbit to contribute... but, those aspects of both sides seem to have been rendered rather well already (better than i could manage anyway).
So, i'll just deal with this tragedy instead...
What i wish to point out —to folks whom may not already know —is that: Darkroom is a disgruntled Flash developer. And so, when Steve Jobs links to a technical document online, written by x.264 developer "Dark Shikari" . . . does Darkroom present any thought-provoking arguments with which to counter that article, in favor of VP8? Negatory. Instead, we are treated to some very curious imagery, created with ActionScript i trust... and packaged in that old familiar TCF (troll container format).
I'm trying to picture Apple users stalking Adobe forums and posting similar (cretinous) comments about Shantanu Narayen. Does that happen? I certainly hope not. At any rate, my message to the uninitiated is: there are several disgruntled Flash developers who hang around here just to post twaddle like that... so don't be too surprised when you see it. And, some of the supposed pro-Apple reps also emanate odd statements at times ("Linux sucks ass"?), so... it may be that there are a few jokers in that deck as well.
</detour>
So, i'll just deal with this tragedy instead...
Quoted above is what appears to be an exchange between *two* people... but, it all comes off just a little too pat methinks. So i'm wondering if our old friend Mr. Darkroom has perhaps created a hidden identity for himself, embodied in the personage of recently registered member "waiting4newmacs"? How strange it is that this (otherwise intriguing) topic of discussion should be joined by such a vapid comment. And then —as luck would have it —Mr. Darkroom serves up the perfect rejoinder. A most fortuitous meeting indeed. Or, maybe it isn't the convenient coincidence which arouses my suspicions [they could be co-workers or even kissing cousins... no matter.]I'm not liking Mr. Jobs' arrogance
i always picture him sitting in his office replying to emails, smacking gum like a valley girl while scoffing and rolling his eyes at nearly everything.
I think he's like the big-headed queen from Alice in Wonderland
"Bring me the pig!" lol
What i wish to point out —to folks whom may not already know —is that: Darkroom is a disgruntled Flash developer. And so, when Steve Jobs links to a technical document online, written by x.264 developer "Dark Shikari" . . . does Darkroom present any thought-provoking arguments with which to counter that article, in favor of VP8? Negatory. Instead, we are treated to some very curious imagery, created with ActionScript i trust... and packaged in that old familiar TCF (troll container format).
I'm trying to picture Apple users stalking Adobe forums and posting similar (cretinous) comments about Shantanu Narayen. Does that happen? I certainly hope not. At any rate, my message to the uninitiated is: there are several disgruntled Flash developers who hang around here just to post twaddle like that... so don't be too surprised when you see it. And, some of the supposed pro-Apple reps also emanate odd statements at times ("Linux sucks ass"?), so... it may be that there are a few jokers in that deck as well.
</detour>
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
In one area. Home desktop usage. And guess what, that is fast becoming the smallest "niche" in computing (yes it's in quotes because it's a big market).
And the Linux GUI is fine. KDE 4.x is now very polished, 3.5 was even more. Gnome is easy to use and consistent. The problem with the Linux GUI is not the GUI, it's the windows lock-in. People don't just up and switch OSes. Even Apple, with all it's marketing power, is having a hard time reaching double digit market share.
That says a lot.
Linux is a big success in many huge markets that matter a lot more (server, mobile, embedded, entreprise blackbox devices), no matter what you may think about the GUI or it's home desktop penetration.
cmaier
Suspended
Actually you are wrong. There is a troll that filed a lawsuit just last month against philips and other companies for using h.264. The claims of the patent cover the fundamental idea of temporal compression. The claims may or may not be invalid, but they apply to vp8 as easily as h.264.
Many of patents in the h.264 pool also go to fundamental concepts like temporal or spatial compression, or timecode-based synchronization. The fact that no one has yet sued on vp8 doesn't mean those of us who have actual read these patents and seen these patent lawsuits can't opine that such a lawsuit is coming. I don't have to wait for the sirens to know that the building is on fire.
Mpeg-la will assert that at least some subset of its pool must be licensed for vp8. Further, a wide collection of trolls that doesn't participate in the pool will also make the same argument, just like they do for every other codec.
Your argument seems to be that if I have a patent on X, I have the right to do X. You say that google has all the patents on vp8, therefore it seems to be safe. Patents don't work that way. Having a patent on something does not give me the right to do it. It only gives me the right to exclude others from doing it. If i have a patent on 4-legged stools, but someone else has a patent on stools with 2 or more legs, i cannot make any 4-legged stools.
Many of patents in the h.264 pool also go to fundamental concepts like temporal or spatial compression, or timecode-based synchronization. The fact that no one has yet sued on vp8 doesn't mean those of us who have actual read these patents and seen these patent lawsuits can't opine that such a lawsuit is coming. I don't have to wait for the sirens to know that the building is on fire.
Mpeg-la will assert that at least some subset of its pool must be licensed for vp8. Further, a wide collection of trolls that doesn't participate in the pool will also make the same argument, just like they do for every other codec.
Your argument seems to be that if I have a patent on X, I have the right to do X. You say that google has all the patents on vp8, therefore it seems to be safe. Patents don't work that way. Having a patent on something does not give me the right to do it. It only gives me the right to exclude others from doing it. If i have a patent on 4-legged stools, but someone else has a patent on stools with 2 or more legs, i cannot make any 4-legged stools.
macUser2007
macrumors 68000
And the point for all this FUD is...?
The possibility that someone will sue is present for virtually any software. This includes H.264, as well as WebM.
Obviously Google feels that either such possibility is minimal, or that they can deal with it efficiently. They did their due diligence during the acquisition, presumably.
The only certainty here is that you are spreading FUD.
cmaier
Suspended
Stating facts is not spreading FUD just because you don't like the facts. As to what google is thinking, who knows. Webm probably won't end up costing more than h.264 when all is said and done. (since it is inferior for most uses) But it certainly won't be free. Encoders (and possibly decoders) will end up paying mpeg-la and/or patent trolls. The question will come down to economics. If the cost isn't much less than h264, why use it? And if the cost is not certain (because trolls dominate the economics, instead of a patent pool willing to defend the standard from patent attack) it is equally undesirable. Google has already said won't pay for any successful patent attacks - the best thing that could happen for the standard at this point is a patent pool, particularly one willing to defend the standard.
macUser2007
macrumors 68000
What facts are you talking about?
The facts are that Google acquired a company for $140 million, after conducting due diligence, and now opened one of the major assets of this company.
Would there be patent trolls coming out of the woodwork? Maybe, maybe not.
But even if there are some infringement claims, there is no particular reason to think it will "cost" anything to the end users.
It's as ridiculous as someone issuing dire warnings against buying a new iPhone, because both Nokia and HTC have filed complaints against Apple.
So, yeah, all you've done in this thread is spread baseless FUD.
cmaier
Suspended
Where did I say anything about end users paying anything?
And what dire warnings have I made?
All I've said is:
1) the same trolls who sue for using h264 will sue for using webm, assuming the victim has profits to take
2) mpeg-la will form a patent pool and assert a license is required for webm (they've already made noises about that, in fact)
Based on this I've asserted webm will be no more free than h264. Despite your accusations ive said nothing about end users paying anything. I'm not sure why you feel this is such a horrible and inappropriate position to take.
You've also now twice implied that google must have figured out a way around this, but by that logic there would never be any lawsuits. Microsoft, echostar, and even apple have lost big patent lawsuits, sometimes for hundreds of millions of dollars, despite having done "due diligence."
And what dire warnings have I made?
All I've said is:
1) the same trolls who sue for using h264 will sue for using webm, assuming the victim has profits to take
2) mpeg-la will form a patent pool and assert a license is required for webm (they've already made noises about that, in fact)
Based on this I've asserted webm will be no more free than h264. Despite your accusations ive said nothing about end users paying anything. I'm not sure why you feel this is such a horrible and inappropriate position to take.
You've also now twice implied that google must have figured out a way around this, but by that logic there would never be any lawsuits. Microsoft, echostar, and even apple have lost big patent lawsuits, sometimes for hundreds of millions of dollars, despite having done "due diligence."
macUser2007
macrumors 68000
Please explain this part. This is the FUD I am talking about.
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
You say this as if it was fact. However, the MPEG-LA has been saying the same thing about VP3/Theora for 10 years now and have yet to present a patent pool and license for it.
The only fact here is that the MPEG-LA has been blowing this smoke for 10 years and taking anything they say at face value and repeating it is just spreading the FUD around.
If they truely have patents covering VP3/Theora or VP8, let them come forth, then we'll talk.
This has been my point this entire thread, you're only again pilling on the FUD with "No one is immune!". Like you said yourself, if that was a negative point, the H.264 isn't immune either and a license from MPEG-LA won't save you. Might as well go for something that is royalty free upfront then paying upfront and paying later when you are successfully sued.
People claiming VP8 isn't royalty free based on "What if" scenarios are indeed spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. What if scenarios can be made up for everything.
cmaier
Suspended
I've said it several times. Even if we ignore patent trolls, mpeg-la is already asserting that its patents likely cover webm. The end result will probably end up being a licensing model similar to h264. Currently that means that commercial streaming providers with more than 100,000 subscribers pay a license fee. I can't remember for sure, but distributors of encoders may also pay royalties. If people refuse to pay, mpeg-la would likely sue deep pockets to get everyone in line.
When you add in trolls, companies that implement webm will end up paying settlements (and/or lawyers).
My point is that webm is not free to use without fear of lawsuits or eventual payments. In no case, though, is it likely end users would ever have to pay anything (other than increased subscription or software costs when providers pass along then cost).
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
The MPEG-LA has been asserting for 10 years that they have patents over VP3/Theora. Nothing has come of it.
That is the very definition of FUD.
cmaier
Suspended
The difference is that a patent pool can give you indemnity, and acts as a deterrent against non-trolls. Patent pools provide certainty, and businesses prefer a certain up front payment to uncertain lawsuit results later on.
You are right - perhaps mpeg-la won't act. Given that no one with any money to pay a judgment uses theora, I don't see this situation as analogous, though. It is world war three. Camps are forming. I don't see mpeg-la sitting on their patents. But perhaps they will. One thing I know for sure - mpeg-la has patents that cover webm; if they want to act, they can.
So while the future is uncertain, I refuse to accept that its inappropriate to make predictions.
You are right - perhaps mpeg-la won't act. Given that no one with any money to pay a judgment uses theora, I don't see this situation as analogous, though. It is world war three. Camps are forming. I don't see mpeg-la sitting on their patents. But perhaps they will. One thing I know for sure - mpeg-la has patents that cover webm; if they want to act, they can.
So while the future is uncertain, I refuse to accept that its inappropriate to make predictions.
macUser2007
macrumors 68000
Really? You know this for certain?! Even MPEG-LA qualifies their statements on this subject.
Geez, hotshot, you could have saved Google a lot of money, had they consulted you.
You were spouting similar legal nonsense in the Google TV thread.
What's with all this FUD? Do you get a few pennies on the side from Apple PR or something?
cmaier
Suspended
Really? You know this for certain?! Even MPEG-LA qualifies their statements on this subject.
Geez, hotshot, you could have saved Google a lot of money, had they consulted you.
You were spouting similar legal nonsense in the Google TV thread.
What's with all this FUD? Do you get a few pennies on the side from Apple PR or something?
When you have nothing better to do than attack me personally it must be because you have no legal or factual arguments to make.
And yes, i know it for a fact because I, unlike you, have actually read the patents, and i have read the spec. Feel free to do so yourself and then offer an opinion. And mpeg-la has not qualified their statements regarding infringement - they only qualify their statements regarding what they intend to do about it. Others who have read the patents and the spec have said the same thing. The only ones claiming this is all fud are people who don't know how to read patents and/or C code.
Btw, h264 is not owned by apple. I use gmail, google maps, googles search engine, ad-sense, google scholar, etc. I love google, and don't care what codec my browser uses. I'm commenting on the situation as i see it.
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
I named 2 companies that make tons of cash and used Theora in their products.
Ubisoft and Atari.
Where's the lawsuit ? Until then. FUD. Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
So the google staff that did the same thing as you and found nothing is wrong and you are right ? Google spent 140 million dollars after their staff assured them it was fine, but some guy on Macrumors found something that is "100% fact that VP8 is covered by some MPEG-LA patents". Like Macsurf said, maybe Google should've hired you. That's not an attack, it's just pointing out how arrogant you suddenly sound.
And what you are doing is spreading FUD. Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. IP Terrorism if you prefer.
surferfromuk
macrumors 65816
If it's from Google chances are there's a sneaky little 'phone home' backdoor updater app that gets installed into your system (without your approval) - just like the one in Google Earth that 'snuck' in there and that you can't turn off or disable.
cmaier
Suspended
Lots of big companies buy ip and end up paying hundreds of millions in patent lawsuits. Your argument is ridiculous. Google has likely reached the same conclusion as me, but they have decided the benefits of proceeding outweigh the risks. They may be right.
Fud is claiming that h264 will cost money in 2015. Actually its not fud. Its a prediction. Just like the one I made. Applying reason and making a prediction is not fud.
But since you can't apparently put two coherent sentences together without personal attacks or claims of fud, I can only suppose you have no interest in a reasoned discussion.
Fud is claiming that h264 will cost money in 2015. Actually its not fud. Its a prediction. Just like the one I made. Applying reason and making a prediction is not fud.
But since you can't apparently put two coherent sentences together without personal attacks or claims of fud, I can only suppose you have no interest in a reasoned discussion.
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
I see you failed to comment again on the Theora situation. You said no one with money used it, hence why we didn't see a lawsuit. I brought forth 2 very cash rich companies that did.
Again, please, where's the lawsuit ? What's your take on it now ? Why haven't these companies been sued ? 10 minutes ago, you were still claiming that if a company with money had used Theora, it would be a done deal.
Changed your mind yet ? Seeing the light on the FUD yet ?
MPEG-LA might have had credibility when they first uttered the words "patent pool" 10 years ago. But that's the thing with credibility, it erodes.
Today, your/the MPEG-LA claims vs Google's on this, I tend to go with the little guy that didn't cry wolf for the last 10 years. Since you're siding with the one that did, well, you might just get eaten by the wolf once he comes around, and you need to accept that.
Grow some skin if it hurts you that we point out that Google's entire staff and conclusions are different than your own and that we don't quite afford you that much credibility.
macUser2007
macrumors 68000
No, mate. When you try to support your FUD by asserting superior personal knowledge and credentials, you open such assertions to questions.
So, if you tell us that you know best, because you are a patent attorney, we may point out, that you are a junior associate, from one of the worst rated schools in the country.
Presumably, the Google legal team was comprised of better caliber attorneys, who did their job well, and likely offered reasonable solutions to the issues you see (which are endemic to the business as a whole).
In two days you have warned that we should beware of Google TV, and of WebM, because of some hypothetical legal challenges you see.
This is FUD, pure and simple. Unless you start issuing the same warnings about every new product announced on these pages, like the upcoming iPhone HD, which we can then attribute simply to you being an inexperienced lawyer.
Didn't mpeg-la simply say they were looking at webm?
There's a lot of companies supporting both vp8 and mpeg-la. You can't really consider mpeg-la as a single entity, there's more than likely companies that hold patents and have no problems with (and want) vp8, let alone starting up a massive, heavily publicized court case to possibly find 1 or 2 patents.
Things can change a fair bit in 8 years - The code is open. There's no incentive now to optimise for PNSR graphs for some corporate sales push.
I havn't really looked myself, but I'm under the impression that even currently, baseline to baseline comparisons are pretty level headed. Also, pretty much any comparison people make is using x264, far and away the best encoder, that unfortunately lives in a slightly grey world. I'm sure comparing the best vp8 implementations vs the worst h264 (ie. the proprietary) implementations would give a different angle.