Mims's Bits

Google's New Open Source Video Standard May Never Be Free

Every widely implemented standard for online video is now covered by a raft of patents, including the new VP8 codec from Google, say multiple sources.

Christopher Mims 05/26/2010

  • 5 Comments

Last week, Google announced an "open and free" video format, VP8, with the goal of creating a video standard that anyone can use without paying royalties. That seems unlikely, however, if you believe recent statements by Steve Jobs and the company implicated in potentially shackling VP8 developers with licensing fees justified by multiple patents on the underlying technologies.

Here's Jobs's note, in full, from before the announcement by Google:

>>

From: Steve Jobs

To: Hugo Roy

Subject: Re: Open letter to Steve Jobs: Thoughts on Flash

Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 06:21:17 -0700

All video codecs are covered by patents. A patent pool is being assembled to go after Theora and other "open source" codecs now. Unfortunately, just because something is open source, it doesn't mean or guarantee that it doesn't infringe on others patents. An open standard is different from being royalty free or open source.

Sent from my iPad

<<

While Theora, a pre-existing open source standard, isn't the same thing as VP8, an in-depth technical analysis of VP8 concludes that the two have a great deal in common.

Larry Horn, CEO of MPEG LA, the industry consortium / patent pool-holding firm that already collects licensing fees on the h.264 codec, confirmed that his company was forming a pool of patents related to VP8.

The notion that any technology companies hold any patents that cover the technology behind VP8 runs directly counter to statements made by Google product manager Mike Jazayeri, who told The Register "We have done a pretty through analysis of VP8 and On2 Technologies prior to the acquisition and since then, and we are very confident with the technology and that's why we're open sourcing."

The problem for Google and VP8 is that it may not even matter who turns out to be the victor of this verbal fencing match: if developers or investors are convinced there's even a possibility that apps or services that use VP8 might eventually be liable for licensing fees (or legal damages) owed to MPEG LA, that alone could force them to either pay up or bow out of using the standard all together.

Google has the resources to fight any industry consortium in court, and it might just get the chance, as the company has declared that it will make all of YouTube available in VP8. But, as John Paczkowski pointed out, unless it's ready to indemnify everyone else who uses the standard against future licensing or legal fees, its claim that VP8 is not only open source but free to use may prove meaningless.

Print

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

enantiomer2000

66 Comments

  • 623 Days Ago
  • 05/26/2010

Google should win

I think Google has a good chance of winning this battle.  You don't invest 100M in buying a company without sending in the lawyers.  MPEG LA wants to control us all after 2015 and Google is the only company with the guts to try and stop them.  Hope they win!

Reply

smithsomian

182 Comments

  • 623 Days Ago
  • 05/26/2010

Patents

It's false to say that it "May Never Be Free".

Regardless of if the technology is covered by  patents, it will eventually be free of patent issues. Unlike the copyright system in the US, patents don't last forever.

Copyrights should also expire except that Disney will continue to try to buy politicians.

Neither software nor math should be patentable but that is another story.

Reply

colinnwn

88 Comments

  • 622 Days Ago
  • 05/27/2010

Fail to see the point

I fail to see the point of all this bloviating that VP8 might not be free, and Google won't indemnify against 3rd party patent infringement.

Video codecs are a morass of patent concerns, and MPEG-LA doesn't own all of them. I am pretty sure they also don't indemnify you against 3rd party patent claims in H.264 or others they license. They are ONLY a convenience pool, users are responsible for licensing any patents outside of the pool applicable to H.264.

So really there is no difference between MPEG-LA/H.264 and Google/VP8 other than MPEG-LA has been around long enough to have some litigation history on video codecs. But I also believe some really smart Google lawyers did due diligence before committing tens of millions to VP8.

Reply

chinu1946

1 Comment

  • 622 Days Ago
  • 05/27/2010

BP top kill

Is it possible to attach open palm large metal structure to riser pipe. By doing this, you are dividing high pressure to palm and five fingers.
Once this unit is attached, remotley change it to a close fist and slowly unit will rest like bended wrist 90 degree position  to stop this leak. it is just a thought!!!

Reply

chila

6 Comments

  • 621 Days Ago
  • 05/28/2010

software patents are the problem

they shouldn't exist

Reply

Bio

Christopher Mims is a journalist who covers technology and science for just about everybody.

Subscribe to the Mims's Bits RSS Feed

Advertisement
Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement