[protomyth]

Given how cable looks compared to over the air HDTV, the coming of 4k, and satellite channels even h.264 isn't good enough. VP8 won't be and h.265 is the industries answer. I would expect trouble with the adoption of VP9 given Google's moves with Mortorola's patents.

[shmerl]

> I would expect trouble with the adoption of VP9 given Google's moves with Mortorola's patents.

How exactly? There is no indication that Google wants to make VP9 patent encumbered, since their whole idea behind VP8 was to enable high quality open video codec for the Web and beyond. If VP9 will be their natural next step, it will be open as well. If Daala comes soon enough too - it will be another option.

[protomyth]

There are patents covering VP8 and I would bet VP9 also is covered.

[shmerl]

That's true, and Google explicitly granted their free usage, thus the codec is open in all senses of the word. I'd expect the same story with VP9. So what's your point?

http://www.webmproject.org/license/bitstream/

http://www.webmproject.org/license/software/

http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/

[protomyth]

Google went back on what Motorola had already pledged when they bought them. What assurance does anyone have that Google won't do the same again?

[shmerl]

Motorola was bought from beginning to use as a leverage tool against patent trolls like Apple and MS. What did you expect? VPx is intended to be open from beginning by Google.

[protomyth]

Basically, I expect patents licensed a certain way for an important standard to stay licensed that way.

Your post, makes my point. Why would Apple and MS expect Google not to do it again?

[gillianseed]

Google releases VP8 and VP9 with a patent and royalty free licence, so a potential patent threat will hardly come from them.

[protomyth]

Motorola released their GSM required patents under FRAND licensing. Google buys Motorola and tries to use those same patents in a fight with Apple and Motorola (dragging Qualcomm in with them). Google has to agree with the FTC not to do that.

Why would Apple or Microsoft believe Google's patent and royalty free license given their behavior with Motorola's prior promises?

[shmerl]

Apple and MS just don't like open codecs, period. That's the whole reason they sabotage them. It's not about belief - it's about the struggle between closed and open.

[protomyth]

Apple and MS don't like legal uncertainty and additional risks in choosing technologies. Open never entered into it. People also forget some of the problem both companies had with MPEG-LA.

[shmerl]

That's bunk. H.264 has as much legal uncertainty as VP8. This didn't stop them from using it. Naturally they just have allergy on open codecs.

[protomyth]

H.264 has a group of companies and a lot of lawyers backing it up. VP8 has Google's word. It is not bunk and has nothing to do with open codecs.

[taligent]

Exactly the patent threat will come from the MPEG-LA or the members directly.

Because if VP9 is indeed similar to H.265 then you I would imagine a patent is being infringed somewhere. And since Google doesn't provide patent indemnification you can guarantee that some big royalties will be demanded from users.

[shmerl]

> Exactly the patent threat will come from the MPEG-LA or the members directly. Because if VP9 is indeed similar to H.265

Why would they design the codec to be vulnerable to patent attacks? VP8 was designed to work around threats from H.264. They surely applied the same logic for VP9 since they intend it for practical use and not as theoretical brain exercise. MPEG-LA spits threats all the time, including against Theora and VP8, but they have no teeth to bite.

[gillianseed]

I bet you said the same thing back when VP8 was released, no such patent lawsuit has occured.

Also, On2 which Google purchased holds lots of video compression patents, patents which codec's like h.264 and h.265 just as likely violates.

MPEG-LA does not offer any patent indemnification either.