Ready to be published? LXer is read by around 350,000 individuals each month, and is an excellent place for you to publish your ideas, thoughts, reviews, complaints, etc. Do you have something to say to the Linux community?
Google has announced a patent-sharing program around WebM in an effort to guard the open source web video format from legal attack. On Monday, with a blog post, the company introduced the WebM Community Cross-License (CCL) initiative, which brings together companies willing to license each other's patents related to the format. Founding members include AMD, Cisco Systems, Logitech, MIPS Technologies, Matroska, Mozilla, Opera, Samsung, Texas Instruments, and the Xiph.org Foundation, as well as Google.
At first, I didn't get this. Is this some kind of OIN, where companies give away their patents for free to a non profit?
However, it seems Google read the Microsoft Power Evangelism ("Evangelism is war")-guide. It tells:
"Don't confront the enemy, instead attack the enemies alliances! Alliances - in general - are weak."
This is exactly what Google did it seems:
Both Cisco, Samsung and LG are holding patents of the MPEG-LA h.264-pool. Now, these three companies have promised not to assert their patents against WebM. Meaning the "first breaches" in the MPEG-LA alliance. I'm eager to find out if more MPEG-LA companies will join ship. I think Philips, HP and Sony may be possible candidates for the CCL. Sony and Philips of course - are founders of the Open Invention Network, and I think HP would benefit if it's WebOS offered support for WebM. Also, HP might benefit from WebP (the 'picture' equivalent of WebM) support for their printers.
So things might turn out to be interesting. Much will depend on if patents can be enforced in the US. I'm not really sure what the verdict 'In re Bilski' meant, but from what I understood, the court said "it doesn't go without saying software patents are valid". Given most h.264 patent pool licenses are pretty much 'mathemathical algorithm patents' for all I know, it would be interesting to see if these hold up in court. But if it's tested, I think by then WebM will have failed due to FUD. So it would be better if all participators in this standard battle come to a 'voluntary' agreement, but my crystal ball doesn't tell if they will.
In Re Bilski didn't do much other than weaken one of the tests for patent validity very slightly. It basically said (as far as we are concerned) that the "Machine or Transformation Test" was not *THE* test, but *A* test. What that does is say there can be other tests to consider, a back door for refinement of the standard at a later point. It was basically a cop-out decision. We don't know what M$ v. I4I will bring.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:
|||||
10
Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
However, it seems Google read the Microsoft Power Evangelism ("Evangelism is war")-guide. It tells:
"Don't confront the enemy, instead attack the enemies alliances! Alliances - in general - are weak."
This is exactly what Google did it seems:
Both Cisco, Samsung and LG are holding patents of the MPEG-LA h.264-pool. Now, these three companies have promised not to assert their patents against WebM. Meaning the "first breaches" in the MPEG-LA alliance. I'm eager to find out if more MPEG-LA companies will join ship. I think Philips, HP and Sony may be possible candidates for the CCL. Sony and Philips of course - are founders of the Open Invention Network, and I think HP would benefit if it's WebOS offered support for WebM. Also, HP might benefit from WebP (the 'picture' equivalent of WebM) support for their printers.
So things might turn out to be interesting. Much will depend on if patents can be enforced in the US. I'm not really sure what the verdict 'In re Bilski' meant, but from what I understood, the court said "it doesn't go without saying software patents are valid". Given most h.264 patent pool licenses are pretty much 'mathemathical algorithm patents' for all I know, it would be interesting to see if these hold up in court. But if it's tested, I think by then WebM will have failed due to FUD. So it would be better if all participators in this standard battle come to a 'voluntary' agreement, but my crystal ball doesn't tell if they will.