Re: As I've said before...

On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 04:30, Tom Sparks <[email protected]> wrote:
> from Remco remco47 at gmail.com on Fri May 21 12:00:01 PDT 2010
>
> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 20:48, startx <startx at plentyfact.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:34:43 -0600
>> Shayne Wissler <wissler at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Don't say I didn't warn you:
>>>
>>> http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20100520/googles-royalty-free-webm-video-may-not-be-royalty-free-for-long
>>>
>>
>> err ... so what? What did you expect somebody whose whole existence
>> depends on patents to say?
>>
>> i say let him "assemble his licence pool" ... people claimed they would
>> do against theora for years, nothing happend. where is steve jobs
>> magical license pool he announced recently.
>>
>> i think what MPEG-LA is _really_ afraid of is fighting it out and
>> loosing ... FUD serves their purposes much better.
>
>>If they actually set up such a patent pool, would they risk a lawsuit
>>from Google? Damaging a public image through falsehoods is libel.
>
>>--
>>Remco
>
> "
> <sniped>
> Subject to the terms and conditions of the above License, Google
> hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive,
> no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this
> section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell,
> import, and otherwise transfer this implementation of VP8, where such
> license applies only to those patent claims, both currently owned by
> Google and acquired in the future, licensable by Google that are
> necessarily infringed by this implementation of VP8. If You or your
> agent or exclusive licensee institute or order or agree to the
> institution of patent litigation against any entity (including a
> cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that this
> implementation of VP8 or any code incorporated within this
> implementation of VP8 constitutes direct or contributory patent
> infringement, or inducement of patent infringement, then any rights
> granted to You under this License for this implementation of VP8
> shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
> "- libvpx LICENSE downloaded from WebM source
>
> tom sparks

That's another way. But if MPEG-LA just sets up a patent pool, Google
can't sue them for VP8 patent infringement (if they even apply to
H.264). So MPEG-LA can scare anyone into buying a license for what
MPEG would falsely call "MPEG's VP8 patents". That's where Google's
WebM image is damaged as a patent-unencumbered codec.

-- 
Remco