> I'm gonna go with the analysis of the guy who said his B-frame implementation gave x264 the project's single greatest encoding quality improvement over the guy who thinks the release date of VP3 determines which patents encumber VP8, thanks.
Over both of those I think I'll take the implied legal opinion of the Google's legal team. In pushing WebM so strongly, Google obviously thinks it can withstand any attempted assault from the MPEG-LA. And unlike any of us or even Dark Shikari, they are lawyers who are qualified to make judgments about patent issues, and they know about exactly what hand Google is holding.
I'm sure Google's lawyers are good, but they aquired On2 in 2009. They've had barely a year to research On2's patents, prior art, and MPEG-LA's patents. As well as research the changes in VP8 (from VP6? the other allegedly unencumbered codecs) and compared them to H.264.
Exactly. And since Google has decided not to indemnify users of WebM, it would be logical to conclude Google's lawyers believe that MPEG-LA likely has a case. Otherwise, why not really get hardware developers on board with indemnity promises?
I'm aware of this. My point being is none of the other hardware vendors know if they're going to get sued until a potential patent submarine fires its torpedoes. Would you want to bet your business by being the first?
I think the assertion here is that Google would have researched their patents and prior art BEFORE actually buying the company (this is what the due diligence process is for). Google's only had a year go convert the VP8 code into open-source WebM code.
I'm absolutely certain that Google's legal team didn't begin studying On2's patents after the acquisition. There was probably at least another 6 to 12 months of analysis before the acquisition occurred.
Over both of those I think I'll take the implied legal opinion of the Google's legal team. In pushing WebM so strongly, Google obviously thinks it can withstand any attempted assault from the MPEG-LA. And unlike any of us or even Dark Shikari, they are lawyers who are qualified to make judgments about patent issues, and they know about exactly what hand Google is holding.