[theora] Fwd: VP8

[Gregory Maxwell]

On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Denver Gingerich <denver at ossguy.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Richard Watts <rrw at kynesim.co.uk> wrote:
>>  Obviously, I'd rather hope that google's due diligence was good
>> enough that there were no essential patents required for VP8 per se -
>> there obviously will be for VP8's use with things like MPEG-2
>> systems - but if it wasn't, I'd much rather have the MPEG-LA's
>> non-discriminatory and generally reasonably priced and accessible
>> terms than (e.g.) the audio codec peoples' multi-dollar per device
>> royalties and 'we'll licence only if you refuse to play any other
>> format' terms.
>
> Do you have a reference for this statement about audio codec licensing
> terms?  I'd be interested to learn more about it.
>

It's not a secret:
http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/



But I can't agree with the assessment of MPEG-LA as good guys. If they
were good guys they wouldn't be spreading FUD about Theora and VP8 to
the press-- they'd simply offer their services as a pool assembly
service rather than spreading fear about competitors to their pool.
They also wouldn't be operating a hardly arms length NPE patent
litigation firm (http://www.mobilemediaideas.com/).