Re: [rtcweb] Google VP8 Patent Grant for third parties [Was Re:Proposal for H.263 baseline codec]

[Randell Jesup <[e-mail]>]

On 4/10/2012 2:50 PM, Dean Willis wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Serge Lachapelle <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>
>     Google confirms that the VP8 patent grant applies to both
>     third-party hardware and software implementations of VP8.
>     *
>     *
>
>
> That's very nice of Google, but I'm personally not worried about 
> Google filing suit against me (as a small developer) if I implement 
> using VP8.
>
> What I'm worried about is either a troll who has acquired a patent 
> through the usual fire-sale process, or a Big Old Research Lab that 
> has a gazillion patents but no revenue and decides to start monetizing 
> patents its management team had forgotten existed. Both sorts of 
> entities are very active in today's world of patent fights. And there 
> are patents on design patterns going way back; we're approaching a 
> world of "solid invention" where every alternative design for anything 
> we know how to do has already been described in a patent filing.
>
> So if you really want me to be comfortable with implementing using 
> VP8, buy me an insurance policy that will indemnify me (and any other 
> developer) for any costs related to defending against any future 
> infringement claims on VP8. Perhaps I'd even settle for a free 
> software stack that includes such indemnification in its license. This 
> wouldn't help the hardware implementer, much, however.

Such is the world of patents (especially software/algorithmic patents).  
Stick to stuff that's ~25-30 years old and you're probably ok (though 
someone may ding you for combining old thing A with old thing B).  
Original MPEG-1 for video is probably ok, just don't add anything to it 
or extend it or use it  in a way not originally envisioned (like over 
the internet).

Or live with non-0 risk of patent trolls.

-- 
Randell Jesup
[e-mail]