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

As a poor and rather nervous developer trying to avoid any slithering reptiles laying await in the grass, VP8 seems to be the not so obvious choice here. Would be better if Google could get behind this a little more as the vagueness could drive some to using H.263 (plegh), liability or not, most perceive 263 as royalty free.

As it stands...

VP8 +1

On 2012-04-11, at 11:29 PM, Dean Willis <dean.willis@softarmor.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> I said before, either direction is a gamble.  But, the odds of not getting
> successfully sued are in your favor with H.264, in my opinion.  Here's why:
> 
> 
> That's arguable. As a small developer (and a poor one), I'm not able to pay for licensing H.264. Therefore, my odds of getting sued (if anybody notices my work) are pretty high. Just ask Microsoft what the odds of getting sued for using H.264 are ... or the costs of trying to license it (reports are that Moto was asking $4 billion for their patents alone).
> 
> http://www.rethink-wireless.com/article.asp?article_id=23154
> 
> I'm not saying VP8 is any safer in the long run, but it's certainly easier to comply with its licensing terms up front. So I might accidentally infringe, but it wouldn't be willful (at least on the essential core; there are a lot of patents about there about stuff you might want to do with the video that cover both codecs).
> 
> Think of it as picking up a random snake that MIGHT be venomous, versus picking up one that's already buzzing its tail and striking at movement (caught one in my yard Monday, actually).
> 
> The thing to remember is that you need to handle both with respect. They're still snakes. Even an unenvenomed bite can get infected. And the quiet one might be a cobra instead of a rattlesnake.
> 
> --
> Dean
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb