Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue

[Basil Mohamed Gohar <[e-mail]>]

On 10/30/2013 01:40 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> On 10/30/2013 10:07 AM, Jack Moffitt wrote:
>>>> Do we switch now, or do we give up and live with royalties forever?
>>> This is a little dramatic. One can trivially prove that every technology
>>> required to implement H.264 will lose the protection of the patent
>>> system in
>>> a finite period of time. Much, much sooner than "forever".
>> Selection of royalty-required codecs sets a precedent.
>>
>> jack.
> 
> Prove that VP8 isn't such a thing, and we'd have a clear decision to make.
> 
> Matthew Kaufman

1. Proving the absence of something is usually impossible when you would
have to exhaustively find all uses to rule out the possibility.

2. Proving the presence of something, on the other hand, would be an
exceptionally easy task.  Just find one.

Aside from Google, who's both purchased On2 and also entered into an
agreement with MPEG-LA to STOP their attempts at forming a patent pool
for VP8 (highly indicating there was very little money that could be
sought from VP8, maybe even saving face for them somewhat), it has never
been demonstrated that anyone has paid any licensing fees for VP8 since
Google released it as free software and also issue their patent grant,
for those using it in the VP8 implementation (a condition of their
grant, I believe).

So, just provide us the one (non-contrived, like Ericsson paying Apple
or something like that) case where someone was forced to pay a licensing
fee for VP8 as above, and it would give your suspicion credence.  Absent
that, then it's just FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt), and don't
contribute anything useful to the discussion.

-- 
Libre Video
http://librevideo.org