On Sun, 2010-05-30 at 16:34 +0200, Sebastian Dröge wrote:

> > However, on 28. May 2010, ftp-master did ACCEPT the package libvpx in
> > the Debian archive.  This package includes software to decode *and* encode
> > google's new VP8 codec, as well as WEBM, a container format based on
> > matroska.  An analysis that shows that VP8 is very similar to h264 has
> > been published by Jason Garrett-Glaser, a primary x264 developer:
> > 
> > http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=377
> > 
> > He explains detail his concerns why he thinks that VP8 is too similar to
> > be free of patent concerns. Quoting from this article:
> >
> > [...]
> 
> That's what someone else says about this issue:
> http://xiphmont.livejournal.com/50239.html?thread=135231#t135231

Also interesting on the patent situation of VP8 and the blog you linked:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2010-May/047795.html

> On the patent part—  Simply being similar to something doesn't imply
> patent infringement, Jason is talking out of his rear on that point.
> He has no particular expertise with patents, and even fairly little
> knowledge of the specific H.264 patents as his project ignores them
> entirely.  Codec patents are, in general, excruciatingly specific — it
> makes passing the examination much easier and doesn't at all reduce
> the patent's ability to cover the intended format because the format
> mandates the exact behaviour.  This usually makes them easy to avoid.
>  It's easy to say that VP8 has increased patent exposure compared to
> Theora simply by virtue of its extreme newness (while Theora is old
> enough to itself be prior art against most of the H.264 pool),  but
> I'd expect any problems to be in areas _unlike_ H.264 because the
> similar areas would have received the most intense scrutiny. ... and
> in any case, Google is putting their billion dollar butt on the line—
> litigation involving inducement to infringe on top of their own
> violation could be enormous in the extreme.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply via email to