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

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

On 10/24/2013 12:02 PM, Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE) wrote:
> On the IPR issue, Google reached agreement with 11 patent holders. There
> are at least 31 companies in the MPEG-LA H.264 pool. There is
> considerable technical overlap between VP8 and H.264.
> 
> My employer is one of those in the H.264 pool, and wasn’t one of the 11
> companies Google reached an agreement with.
> 
> Draw your own conclusions and take your own IPR risks.
> 
> Personally I’d rather the IPR devil I know vs. the IPR devil I don’t know.
> 
> Google could fix this for most potential users (through indemnification,
> similar to what Oracle offers its Linux licensees) but has chosen not
> to. You can draw your own conclusion there, too.
> 
> Matthew Kaufman

There are no conclusions to draw due to lack of sufficient evidence for
anything actionable.  IPR FUD has delayed the adoption of many free,
non-royalty-bearing formats for too long.  And, again, the IPR "devil we
know" is meaningless, because there are still IP litigation threats even
for H.264, MP3, and many other patented, royalty-bearing formats.

So, it contributes little to nothing to the discussion on IPR grounds if
a substantial declaration, as Ted has advised, is not taken, and such
claims should really be discounted in any serious consideration when
weighing options between formats.

-- 
Libre Video
http://librevideo.org