[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.

[shmerl]

> H.264 has a group of companies and a lot of lawyers backing it up.

How can it help against some patent troll who can appear tomorrow and threaten H.264 users? No army of lawyers can help against that. So all this rhetoric is completely useless. Legally VP8 is as good as H.264. The only reason for them to avoid is to retain their monopolistic grip on codecs usage.

[protomyth]

As opposed to handing a monopolistic grip to Google? A lot of money and a lot of lawyers can do a lot of vetting.