Re: Fwd: VP8

On 05/22/2010 11:09 PM, Dave Johnson wrote:
>> Thank you for writing.  We appreciate hearing from you and the
>> opportunity to address your question.
>>
>> MPEG LA provides pool licenses for many different video codecs such as
>> AVC/H.264, MPEG-2, VC-1 and MPEG-4 Part 2.  We do not advocate for one
>> over another; rather, we provide one-stop licenses for the convenience
>> of video providers and users who make choices among them.  
>>
>> Therefore, our announcement of interest in providing a license for VP8
>> is not a matter of protecting our revenue stream from other codecs (many
>> of which are used in parallel).  To the extent patent rights held by
>> many patent holders are necessary for VP8, they need to be dealt with
>> whether or not MPEG LA offers a license.  Our interest is in pooling
>> them so they may be made available for the convenience of users on the
>> same terms under a single license as an alternative to the present
>> fragmented way that necessitates individual negotiations with many
>> different patent holders.   If we succeed, what it can mean is that
>> there will be a more efficient way for the market to access VP8 patent
>> rights, and that translates into broader adoption of VP8 for video
>> providers and consumers like you who choose to use it in providing and
>> receiving video services.
>>
>> If you have additional questions, please let me know.  I will be glad to
>> answer them.
How helpful of them!

But seriously, this is some really messed-up thinking.  The folks over
at MPEG-LA really cannot grasp the concept that not everything needs to
be held under a software patent.  Don't get me wrong, I am certain that
current patent law in the US can cause complications and issues can be
taken to court, but that doesn't mean it's right or logical.  Anyway,
this is still all talk and FUD until they explicitly say what's out there.

Sadly, what they're going to be doing is going to individual companies
that implement WebM or VP8 and scare them with their dogwyers and get
them to buy an unnecessary license from them anyway.  Google and other
supporters of WebM need to make a very firm statement stating that this
kind of behavior from MPEG-LA is unacceptable and that they cannot bully
around smaller (or larger) businesses.