[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?

[shmerl]

You can never expect that, because you have no guarantee against unexpected patent trolling. Apple and MS are just looking for excuse to sabotage open codecs. But real threats come from themselves and unknown patent trolls.