First, these aren't 10 questions for John Gruber; it's 5 questions, with one of them phrased slightly differently 5 times, and another phrased two different ways.
Second, virtually all of these questions take as an axiom that H.264 is IP-encumbered and WebM/VP8 isn't. Technical analyses (by people who have actually implemented H.264 and are familiar with the patents) suggests that that simply isn't the case. That the author of this article thinks that VP3's release prior to H.264 might invalidate any part of the H.264 patent pool suggests that he may not be at all familiar with the patents in play.
Similarly, support for a "known patent troll" isn't germane to the debate if that patent troll is in the mix one way or the other, which appears to be the case.
Third, the fact that the H.264 patent pool hasn't been brought to bear on On2 tells us nothing at all about how successful H.264 would be against WebM; it's not at all unlikely that MPEG-LA sees nothing worth suing in Xiph/On2, and if that's the case, it is surely a different situation once Google pushes adoption.
Fourth, an "open pledge of support" for WebM from chip manufacturers is worth exactly nothing to the people who have spent many many hundreds of millions of dollars on mobile devices with hardware-accelerated H.264. One can reasonably argue that those people don't matter, but they can't with a straight face suggest that a "pledge of support" in any way mitigates the problem.
There's nothing wrong with this post as a contribution to the WebM/H.264 Apple/Google debate. But one gets the sense that the author sees it as some sort of devastating argument. I'm not sure he realizes that handwaving around "known patent trolls" and "decades of threats by MPEG-LA" and "is it because said codec isn't promoted by Apple", he's actually making a fairly weak sounding argument. He sounds emotional.
I'm gonna go with the analysis of the guy who said his B-frame implementation gave x264 the project's single greatest encoding quality improvement over the guy who thinks the release date of VP3 determines which patents encumber VP8, thanks.
By "people who have actually implemented h.264 and are familiar with patents", I assume you mean Jason Garrett-Glaser from his x264dev blog ( http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/377 ). There aren't any patents explicitly mentioned, just that vp8 "feels" a lot like h.264. In that post, there was only one reference to a specific feature, the intra prediction, which was updated with "Update: spatial intra prediction apparently dates back to Nokia’s MVC H.26L proposal, from around ~2000. It’s possible that Google believes that this is sufficient prior art to invalidate existing patents — which is not at all unreasonable!".
The idea that VP3's prior release making AVC infringing is pretty stupid.
You make a valid point that I should have acknowledged. That said, what I'm doing is comparing this post, which seems deeply uninformed, to Garret-Glaser's post, which isn't.
I'm not expert on video patents either. The overarching issue is, this post seems to think the IP situation with WebM is virtually cut-and-dry, and we have every reason to believe it isn't.
I don't think "it probably infringes software patents in the US" is a reasonable argument against using a specific piece of software. Aside from the arguments against the legitimacy of software patents, it's practically tautological to say that non-trivial software infringes on patents, somewhere.
Here's the problem with that line of argument: while it may hold true for software patents, when it comes to online video one of the fastest growing categories of end-users are people viewing video on mobile and embedded devices. These devices use dedicated hardware to decode video without killing the available power budget. If there is anything behind the claims that WebM infringes upon MPEG-LA patents then you are not going to see the lawsuits drop until real devices are shipping with dedicated hardware decoders. Such devices are easier to nab at borders and by getting an injunction against the importation of these devices the MPEG-LA would also start the process with an action that will directly hurt the bottom-line of the alleged infringing party.
If I understand correctly, the h264 license would protect these device makers from lawsuits since the devices probably decodes both h264 and WebM. Thus they already have a license to the patents and the MPEG-LA can't do anything about them.
I don't think that's the argument being used. I think the argument is that there is no reason to believe that you are less likely to get sued for using WebM than if you use h.264. If you use WebM, there's just a bit more uncertainty about who will sue you.
To be fair, however, the OSNews post is questioning Gruber's post, which is at least equally if not more (and, IMO, it is more) misinformed, illogic, and ignorant.
> I'm gonna go with the analysis of the guy who said his B-frame implementation gave x264 the project's single greatest encoding quality improvement over the guy who thinks the release date of VP3 determines which patents encumber VP8, thanks.
Over both of those I think I'll take the implied legal opinion of the Google's legal team. In pushing WebM so strongly, Google obviously thinks it can withstand any attempted assault from the MPEG-LA. And unlike any of us or even Dark Shikari, they are lawyers who are qualified to make judgments about patent issues, and they know about exactly what hand Google is holding.
I'm sure Google's lawyers are good, but they aquired On2 in 2009. They've had barely a year to research On2's patents, prior art, and MPEG-LA's patents. As well as research the changes in VP8 (from VP6? the other allegedly unencumbered codecs) and compared them to H.264.
Exactly. And since Google has decided not to indemnify users of WebM, it would be logical to conclude Google's lawyers believe that MPEG-LA likely has a case. Otherwise, why not really get hardware developers on board with indemnity promises?
I'm aware of this. My point being is none of the other hardware vendors know if they're going to get sued until a potential patent submarine fires its torpedoes. Would you want to bet your business by being the first?
I think the assertion here is that Google would have researched their patents and prior art BEFORE actually buying the company (this is what the due diligence process is for). Google's only had a year go convert the VP8 code into open-source WebM code.
I'm absolutely certain that Google's legal team didn't begin studying On2's patents after the acquisition. There was probably at least another 6 to 12 months of analysis before the acquisition occurred.
Your hair-splitting over how many questions were actually asked draws the discussion away from some good questions.
Second, virtually all of these questions take as an axiom that H.264 is IP-encumbered and WebM/VP8 isn't. Technical analyses (by people who have actually implemented H.264 and are familiar with the patents) suggests that that simply isn't the case
Possible, but if the issue came down to 'an h264 developer with the technical chops' vs 'The due dilligence exercised by Google when acquiring WebM for millions and millions', I think I would lean slightly towards the latter.
On the B-Frame question, he actually missed the fact that VP8 has an analogue to the still patented B-Frame technique on the first go round. But he's since updated it after being corrected, so it seems a strange thing for you to pick up on.
Plus I think it was adaptive quantization that gave the greatest single improvement.
And since you've reminded me. I've seen Mr. Garret-Glaser argue several times that B-Frames aren't under patent any more and haven't been for a few years and that therefore the Theora devs are "retarded" not to use them. Clearly he's started listening to the people who were telling him otherwise since he notes it as a patented technique in that link but it's worth noting if you're holding him up as an expert in codec patents.
by people who have actually implemented H.264 and are familiar with the patents ... I'm gonna go with the analysis of the guy who said his B-frame implementation gave x264 the project's single greatest encoding quality improvement over the guy who thinks the release date of VP3 determines which patents encumber VP8, thanks.
I see this a lot. It purports that Jason Garrett-Glaser has done an expert analysis of all of MPEG-LAs patents and has proclaimed specific infringement by VP8.
Of course that's complete bullshit. His analysis was superficially that there are similarities, and thus there may be infringement. Not one actual patent claim was shown to be infringed upon, much less even referenced to show that there was any understanding of it.
His analysis was as a codec guy. Not as a patent guy.
The devil are in the details.
It turns out (ha ha!) that when people vying for standards lay their patent traps, they tend to be extremely specific, ensuring that they don't get caught by prior art (there is plenty), but that they trap anyone who implements the standard. See Microsoft ActiveSync patents as a perfect example of this.
Does WebM infringe patents? Almost without question, as is the nature of the ridiculously generous patent system. Just as h264 is almost certainly infringing on patents of other parties that just haven't come forward to make their claims yet (and for which a h264 license is zero protection).
But one gets the sense that the author sees it as some sort of devastating argument.
Just as Gruber's post was framed. Google supports Flash, therefore they can't possibly be open, therefore Google is closed, therefore Google is evil...or something like that. Preaching to the choir and all that so I don't think much critical thought is necessary.
Flash is demonstrably, prima facie closed. There's no argument to be had about it. Similarly, I'm not interested in litigating exactly how literate Garret-Glaser is about video IP if it's the case that this guy has absolutely no background in video. I can read press releases myself.
On the off chance that it's helpful, here's the author's bio:
My name is Thom Arvid Holwerda. I was born on the 1st of December in 1984, at the Medical Centre in Alkmaar, Noord-Holland, The Netherlands. Currently I live in Warmenhuizen, a small village a few miles north of Alkmaar (about 45 minutes by car north of Amsterdam). I've finished Latin/Greek school, and studied Psychology for two years at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam (birthplace of MINIX); however, Psychology was not my thing, so I switched to something else. I'm now studying Information & Communication Sciences; a study which, other than the name might suggest, focuses mainly on language. About 50% of the study consists of studying a modern (to me) foreign language (Spanish, French, German, Italian or, in my case, English). My master will be Journalism.
You're right, Garret-Glaser isn't a patent attorney. On the other hand, he's an x264 developer intimately familiar with the standard.
> You're right, Garret-Glaser isn't a patent attorney. On the other hand, he's an x264 developer intimately familiar with the standard.
In other words, he's definitely qualified to comment how similar VP8 might be, which few people deny, and not very well qualified to comment how infringing VP8 might be.
"MPEG LA doesn't favor one codec technology over another; we are like a convenience store that offers patent licenses for any number of codecs as a service to the market." (quoted in "Patent cloud looms over Google Web video plan," http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20006245-264.html?tag=mnco...)
Infringing or not, you may be like the local merchant who is forced to buy "insurance" to stay safe.
So, why didn't we see any action by the MPEG-LA and only ominous threats and some innuendo?
WebM is arguably the currently biggest threat to the goose that lays MPEG-LA's golden eggs. See also how they backtracked on royalties regarding web usage (even though you're still inviting a trojan codec into your home).
It reminds me at Microsoft's 250 or so patents over Linux, "but we won't tell you what they are, sucker"!
> So, why didn't we see any action by the MPEG-LA and only ominous threats and some innuendo?
Because if we did see action, we'd find out once for and for all whether their innuendo has anything solid behind it. It's the standard patent FUD process, aided by everyone who says "it's probably patent encumbered", "we don't know whether it's unencumbered".
It's much better to imply they can crush you rather than actually try to crush you and risk failure. And the best part is that by implying they can crush you but not actually doing so, they can appear to be exercising benevolent goodwill while the FUD does most of the crushing for them, risk-free.
Nobody thinks MPEG-LA is being benevolent. The world is not a comic book storyboard. MPEG-LA isn't going to invest in a patent suit that will cost both sides tens of millions of dollars until they're reasonably sure the investment will pay off. That isn't some Orwellian plot; it's simply good business sense.
The impression I get is that everyone who brings up the "but MPEG-LA hasn't sued anyone, just threatened, they're all talk!" objection also believes that lawsuits are straightforward and that any company with a couple mil in the bank can launch one at a moment's notice. It's true, companies can sue you at a moment's notice, because it doesn't much to sue you and there's little to lose. The situation is a lot different when it's MPEG-LA vs. a patent infringer plus the resources of everyone who would like to see the patent portfolio fail.
Let's elevate this conversation beyond the usual conventional wisdom and rhetoric: Flash is not "demonstrably, prima facie" closed. Really, `tptacek`, it takes almost no independent search to come to a murkier conclusion.
There's probably a bunch of stuff left out that'd make implementation difficult, but that hasn't stopped:
(GORDON)[https://github.com/tobeytailor/gordon] -- an open source Flash runtime written in pure JavaScript . It only supports up to Flash v. 2; almost useless, but interesting.
Apparently, Flex compiler isn't totally open source because of patents concerning audio and video codecs (I'm recalling this off the top of my head; please verify).
Here's (Tamarin)[http://www.mozilla.org/projects/tamarin/]. It's a VM for EcmaScript. It's been rolled into SpiderMonkey, the JS engine for FireFox, I think. It includes support for packages, namespaces, classes, and optional strict typing of variables. Really useful stuff for interactive devs that, unfortunately, hasn't been widely adopted.
Adobe contributes to WebKit on behalf of Flash & Air; I don't know what their contributions have been/how useful they are, though.
I'm a professional interactive dev, and I specialize in Flash, so you might conclude that I'd be biased, and I wouldn't blame you at all. However, as a Flash dev, I'm familiar with the non-marketed vectors of the Flash environment. Take that as you will.
We're geeks: let's all invest a little time to investigate the rhetoric.
If you really don't like Flash, pick another reason: there are many ;)
Isn't the "closed" vs. "open" status of Flash a total red herring? Flash is a browser plugin that any browser maker can choose to support or not to support. Google is arguing that a specified standard should use something more "open".
In other words, I have a hard time seeing how bundling a plugin and not supporting a proprietary codec that is vying to be part of a new standard is hypocritical at all.
And that above all seems to be the most important part of Gruber's "argument".
Give me a break. Flash is even less "open" than Microsoft Office. Both have published portions of their formats and semantics. But Microsoft Office at least has credible (if inferior) alternative implementations. What's the credible alternative to Adobe's Flash runtime?
And who gives a sh!t if Adobe makes contributions to open source? Contributions to open source don't make Flash open source.
Then by your definition Java is as closed as Microsoft Office?
ActionScript and Java are both published standards. Both have a canonical implementation which dominate distribution. Both are used as web plugins. Both standards are controlled by a single corporate entity.
Flash and Java are still free for end users and developers to use and distribute (alternative implementations are handled differently by Oracle & Adobe though).
The same can not be said for H.264. If i as a developer build an app that uses H.264 i have 0 confidence that i will not be sued in the future.
Sure ActionScript is an open standard, but Flash is not. The file format has been published, but has the actual swf format (including its streaming protocols) been ratified by an independent standards body? If so, which one?
Flash's file formats are well-documented, but Adobe decides how it evolves. I can write my own Flash player today, but Adobe might decide tomorrow that they're going to completely change Flash 11's format so that my player is suddenly useless for any new content. They might have even decided it already, and after a year of development, the first I find out about it is on release day. Anyone who's invested time and effort into implementing my player in their software is suddenly screwed until I support the new format (which, because of things like proprietary streaming protocols, I might never be able to do).
This is actually the same problem with WebM. The source code is open, but it's not a community project in the way that something like Apache or PHP is. Google is the one in control, and this is Google's standard. If they're interested in openness, are they going to be submitting WebM to a standards body? Because unless there's a published standard that everyone (including Google) has to adhere to, WebM is even worse than H.264 because there's no guarantee that the money you've spent today will bring you anything tomorrow.
OpenJDK is the Sun (now Oracle) controlled distribution under open source terms. GCJ (which isn't really a "Java" as you'd normally think of it) was put on the backburner by RedHat once OpenJDK became available.
I need a Flex developer to do some freelance work for me. Do you have any contact info? There isn't any listed in your profile. Sorry that this is off-topic, I just really need a Flex guy before the other lady gets a Flex guy and gets the Flex contract before me.
Second, virtually all of these questions take as an axiom that H.264 is IP-encumbered and WebM/VP8 isn't. Technical analyses (by people who have actually implemented H.264 and are familiar with the patents) suggests that that simply isn't the case. That the author of this article thinks that VP3's release prior to H.264 might invalidate any part of the H.264 patent pool suggests that he may not be at all familiar with the patents in play.
Similarly, support for a "known patent troll" isn't germane to the debate if that patent troll is in the mix one way or the other, which appears to be the case.
Third, the fact that the H.264 patent pool hasn't been brought to bear on On2 tells us nothing at all about how successful H.264 would be against WebM; it's not at all unlikely that MPEG-LA sees nothing worth suing in Xiph/On2, and if that's the case, it is surely a different situation once Google pushes adoption.
Fourth, an "open pledge of support" for WebM from chip manufacturers is worth exactly nothing to the people who have spent many many hundreds of millions of dollars on mobile devices with hardware-accelerated H.264. One can reasonably argue that those people don't matter, but they can't with a straight face suggest that a "pledge of support" in any way mitigates the problem.
There's nothing wrong with this post as a contribution to the WebM/H.264 Apple/Google debate. But one gets the sense that the author sees it as some sort of devastating argument. I'm not sure he realizes that handwaving around "known patent trolls" and "decades of threats by MPEG-LA" and "is it because said codec isn't promoted by Apple", he's actually making a fairly weak sounding argument. He sounds emotional.
I'm gonna go with the analysis of the guy who said his B-frame implementation gave x264 the project's single greatest encoding quality improvement over the guy who thinks the release date of VP3 determines which patents encumber VP8, thanks.