Since WebM launched in May, the team has been working hard to make the VP8 video codec faster. Our community members have contributed improvements, but there's more work to be done in some interesting areas related to performance (more on those below).
In other words, if Google doesn't address patent indemnification-or at least release information about its findings on the patents efficacy-a new licensing pool will be created to capitalize on fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Yet Google seems more concerned with modifying its WebM FAQ than it is with helping the online video world understand the practical and financial benefits of an open-source competitor to H.264.
“The source originally claimed that contrary to the related claim made on MPEG LA's website, the source has information that some licensees do indeed have to pay much more for such reasons as the $5 million per-company per-year royalty cap not including all categories of products.”
--Florian MüllerLater he wrote: "The source does not want to be named. The conversation took place at this event in Brussels on Wednesday. The house rules allow quoting from what was said at the event, but it's not allowed to say WHO said something (without permission, of course). The source originally claimed that contrary to the related claim made on MPEG LA's website, the source has information that some licensees do indeed have to pay much more for such reasons as the $5 million per-company per-year royalty cap not including all categories of products. With a view to the house rules of the event, I asked the source, which was present at the event and may have information I don't, whether I could provide its name when quoting. The source asked not to be named. Meanwhile (yesterday) the source also added this clarification: "For most companies, they probably don't see much more than one overall fee." I will mention this on my blog next time I report on codecs [...] The thing is that philosophically I'm against those codec royalties, but economically, if big companies pay a maximum of $5 million per year, it's not a fundamental problem to the industry and those who end up paying are largely in favor of software patents anyway, so I'm not much more sympathetic to them than to MPEG LA. I'm most sympathetic to those who want to get rid of software patents but are attacked nevertheless."
Finally, Müller said: "I don't know when to put it out because it was no longer the "gem" I thought it was once I received that additional clarification about most companies just seeing one item on the bill. You know, I would really have liked to call into question the truthfulness of the representations they make about the cap, but with the clarification the same source provided, it doesn't really have a lot of teeth anymore."
Google is often criticised for secrecy, so we found it neither surprising nor curious that "there are some confidentiality-related sensitivities there: at the start of the event in Brussels, the chairman announced the "house rules" which related to quoting..."
This matter is extremely important because codecs like Theora and VP8 help eliminate the patent problem often associated with codecs in GNU/Linux. To platforms like Windows and Mac OS X it matters a lot less, for sure (they already ship the codecs on the computer/CD). A couple of years ago Red Hat cited codecs as a key reason for abandoning plans to release a desktop product.
Some days ago we learned that software patents may affect the motivation of Free software developers -- a subject that Glyn Moody has just elaborated on:
What this might mean is that although hackers' views and motivations are relatively unaffected by the existence of software patents, they might in fact find themselves hugely affected if major software companies or patent trolls start trying to assert their software patent portfolios – something that many fear might happen. True, this is only speculation, but at the very least, it might provide an interesting topic for further research....