Google called the MPEG-LA's bluff, and won

Saying that Google "won" is an absurd statement. What was the competition? What Google did was smart. The fear of patent infringement was likely the biggest issue VP8 had. They've taken that off the table.<p>But saying they've won seems to imply that someone lost. MPEG-LA didn't have to make a deal with them. But they got enough money that is was worth it to them. As far as they're concerned they get money from Google now, plus all the fees from everyone else. That's a "win" for MPEG-LA.<p>Both Apple and MS pay for H264. I'm sure both would be happy to not have to pay for a codec (although H264 will be around for a long time, even in the worst case). Microsoft's position on VP8 has been pretty clear... they're not shipping it (but maybe will now), but aren't opposed to it.<p>This was a smart move. But doesn't mean that there are winners and losers. And certainly there was no bluff that was called. Paying to license patents from a patent holder is hardly calling their bluff.

How does agreeing with a random third-party about how you can use your own product, and worse, paying them for the mere unproven <i>possibility</i> that they own parts of your product, count as "won"?<p>In any other situation, history would classify this as a clear cut case of <i>racketeering</i> or extortion.

haha this is absurd, and drawing the conclusion in the headline makes about as much sense as "Google admits its WebM (VP8) codec infringes MPEG H.264 patents; agrees to license technology" [1]<p>It is so hard to take OSNews seriously.<p>[1] <a href="http://macdailynews.com/2013/03/08/google-admits-its-webm-vp8-codec-infringes-mpeg-h-264-patents-agrees-to-license-technology/" rel="nofollow">http://macdailynews.com/2013/03/08/google-admits-its-webm-vp...</a>

I don't understand why so many comments are painting this as bad. Who cares if Google paid a shitload of money to MPEG-LA. The main point is, VP8 is now free for anyone to use, for any reason. Wasn't that the goal?

TL;DR Google gave MPEG-LA a bunch of money. Yep, Google sure showed them!

Meanwhile, in reality, everyone is using H.264. Seems like a lot of wasted effort to me.

If you cut the crap, does this mean VP8 is safe to use for everyone for free (without royalties to either MPEG-LA or Google) or not?

I know many here don't like/trust Florian Mueller but he is claiming that Nokia (not part of MPEG-LA patent pools for either VP8 or AVC) is currently suing HTC for patent infringement regarding VP8 in Germany. Google is acting as an intervenor. Assuming this is correct (and I have no reason to doubt it) VP8 is not in the clear just yet and Nokia did not participate in the standardisation so is not committed to FRAND licensing.<p>It is obviously possible that the court could rule the patent is either invalid or not infringed but I think it would be wise to avoid counting chickens just yet (unless anyone has good alternative and contradictory sources on this).<p><a href="http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/patent-clouds-remain-over-vp8-google.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/patent-clouds-remain-over...</a>

It's a shame. As much as i wish this headline would be true, it does only seem to me that Google bent to MPEG-LAs will, a conglomerate of Apple, MS and what not..<p>From my point of view, the MPEG-LA needs to be shut down, not subsidized with more money. It shows every sign of a typical patent troll and will always choose the option that guarantees its members income, not the most innovative or best option, but the one where there the most money can be leeched out of people and companies.

Regardless of whether Google "won" or not, it does look like VP8 will be a much more approachable codec thanks to being open source, and because it doesn't require video makers to pay MPEG-LA license fees whenever they want to make money from their videos. I'd think at the very least professional camera makers would be interested in supporting it. From that point of view, I think the article is right.

Will google now follow through and remove H.264 support from chrome?(1)<p>(1) <a href="http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2011/01/google-reveals-plan-to-remove-h264-support-from-chrome/" rel="nofollow">http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2011/01/google...</a>