> WebM is probably patent encumbered. We just don't know who owns the patents yet.

Actually we do, because Google used the very clever strategy of essentially copying the H.264 algorithm and then methodically working around all the patents. This means that if there are outstanding patents on WebM they are probably on H.264 as well. But the great likelihood is that there are not outstanding patents because any such patent holders would have long ago put their hands up to join the H.264 patent pool and reap the benefits.

Can you support this statement? Because Google didn't even create VP8 - they bought it with ON2. I can't find anything that supports your statement.

H264 isn't "an algorithm" its a pretty massive collection of different algorithms. I actually find it a bit difficult its not infringing in some way and this analysis seems to confirm this.

http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/377

Unfortunately I'm just quoting my own anecdotal knowledge of the discussions that raged about VP8 when Google released it.

I don't think your link contradicts what I said - in fact, in a way it gels very well with it: the conclusion is that VP8 is essentially H.264 with all sorts of bits missing and tweaks that in most cases make it worse than H.264. That's exactly what you would expect if someone took a patented algorithm and went through it point by point to work around the patented parts.

That very link describes multiples places where VP8 does things different to H.264 and basically calls them idiots for not doing it the H.264 way yet doesn't connect this to the patent situation that he is simultaneously accusing them of being idiots about because it is too similar to H.264. He can't have it both ways.

There's a more thorough discussion of this here:

An analysis of WebM and its patent risk

http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/?p=420

> WebM is probably patent encumbered.

Classic FUD.

Read [this](http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/377). VP8 is basically a slightly worse version of baseline H.264.

Which, as others in this thread have pointed out, means it was likely explicitly designed to not violate H.264 patents.

edit [removed no citation available]

Got a source for that?

Nada @ http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/bo...

You mean http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensors.aspx ? That's the list of companies that license the codec to others and of course they get money for that. You do see Apple and Microsoft on the list, do you? What you don't see is Google, Mozilla, Opera and every other competitor..

So, buster, using your logic, if Pepsi uses an ad agency that Coke doesn't use, then Pepsi on that ad agency's board?

According to my logic i can tell if a company is giving the right to license its product to others, that this company will most likely get money for it.

Do you really think Mircrosoft is like "oh, well. MPEG-LA, we hand over the rights for our patens to you. Do as you wish with those patents and also please give the license fees to the other companies. But please don't give us money!"? ;)

You do know that the MPEG-LAs purpose is to collect the rights to those patents from those companies (the licensors) and collects money from the licensees, redistributing it to the licensors. Now Apple and MS are on the list of licensors. And they don't get money, you say? And never will? sure... :)

Cite?