Comment by Twirrim

9 years ago

Guessing (maybe generously?) at OP's meaning, claims were made in the past about VP8 being royalty free etc, and that turned out to be wrong. It's not clear how much we can trust them this time around.

http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/News/-76781.aspx

http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/an-analysis-of-webm-and-its-p...

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/patent-clouds-remain-over...

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/next-patent-infringement-...

5 comments

Twirrim

sofaofthedamned 9 years ago

There is nothing in there that asserts your claim about VP8 being encumbered by royalties/patents.

shmerl 9 years ago

All of those are quite old sources, and patent claims were refuted. Is there anything newer?

Twirrim 9 years ago
https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-and-mpeg-la-settle-long...
So far as I can see, that's the final state. Google ended up having to get a license from the MPEG-LA VP8 patent pool.
- magicalist 9 years ago
  
  from your link:
  > Google's Serge Lachapelle notes that today's agreement is "not an acknowledgment" that VP8 infringes on any of the patents claimed by MPEG LA
  https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg0663...
- shmerl 9 years ago
  
  Bad for Google, but it's not a proof that they require a license. The court didn't rule on it, so it just shows that they didn't want to fight the troll further.