← Back to context Comment by shmerl 9 years ago All of those are quite old sources, and patent claims were refuted. Is there anything newer? 3 comments shmerl Reply 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 LAhttps://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.
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 LAhttps://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.
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 LAhttps://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.
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.
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...
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.