MPEG-LA doesn't claim H.264 is patent free - they just offer a simplified way to license a large number of patents.

If it is FUD, perhaps you can offer an explanation rather than just deflection.

H.264 - paid license, no guarantees of indemnification

Any argument that circumvents the above fact is agenda-driven. People know that WebM is the better choice; but are instead trying to find a roundabout way of keeping their H.264 encoders relevant.

So excuse me if I, after finally abandoning Flash myself, feel this is quiet the hypocriticism of the open web movement. It again, seems like it's about battery life and very little to do with freedom of web technology.

And are you claiming that Google has no agenda? It might be one you support, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

No, I entirely anticipate an agenda - but that doesn't mean it exists. My hope is that Google will do the right thing and offer indemnification. Hoping doesn't do anything, of course, but neither does propping up the MPEG LA's argument of what ifs.

Google offers free services and tools of all kinds, so to single out WebM is highly agenda-driven, IMO.

Disclosure: I own a MBA, PC, iPhone, iPad and work on a iMac at my office. I don't own a single Google hardware product.

Honestly though the points you make here don't seem to have a lot to do with the question.

If Google is going to make claims that things are open, they should be held up to scrutiny. If they are not, then we simply collude with them in weakening the term.

Google claims that a highly complicated piece of code that does pretty much the same thing as another highly complicated piece of code covered by 1700 patents does is patent free and safe to use.

They want other people to stake their money on testing this claim.

"Google offers free services and tools of all kinds, so to single out WebM is highly agenda-driven, IMO."

By that argument, any discussion of individual Google products would be "agenda driven". That's absurd.

This is why I believe these rants about WebM are agenda-driven. Who says Google wants people to front the responsibility? This is your claim. I don't think Google bought WebM for the purpose of screwing the implementors. That doesn't mean I think we're all safe, it just means we need more information before jumping to conclusions. It also does not mean we should use WebM without discretion.

By that argument, any discussion of individual Google products would be "agenda driven". That's absurd.

It's absurd to disregard that out of all the possible Google technologies (maps, android, API), WebM is considered most harmful. Especially since most who share this vision are Apple users (again, so am I). I can't ignore the obvious, stitched together, lop-sided point of view.

WebM - free license, indemnification against 0 patents.

H.264 - paid license, indemnification against > 1700 patents.

(here's the list: http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/avc-att1.p...)

For WebM to be a free equivalent, Google would have to indemnify users against that list of patents. If Google is sure that the patents are not infringed, why doesn't it at least do that?

Both sides are saying (if not expressly then implied) that their licensing technique is believed to be enough, but they can't promise absolute protection.

Both sides are simply not saying the same thing. You are putting words into their mouth to make it look as though the MPEG-LA is saying the same as Google.

I think an unencumbered format would be a good thing, and I'm asking a genuine question. Why is Google making a claim they aren't prepared to back up? Why should other people take the risk for them?

Perhaps there's a good reason for this strategy. I can't see it, so I'm asking if anyone else can?

Saying "the other side is just as bad" is uninformative and just turns the discussion into a question of who's side you're on.