Fri 21 May 2010
Let’s get this staight – MPEG-LA’s and an x264 developer’s sabre rattling is pure FUD
Posted by J5 under Open Formats , Standards , video[16] Comments
Unless you have been living under an Internet rock you already know that Google just released VP8 as an open source and open standard protocol. Almost instantly over night the video codec ecosystem has been turned on its head as Mozilla, Opera, YouTube and Flash, among others have already pledged support and even got tech previews up and running.
It is also no surprise that the MPEG-LA and x264 developers are hitting back. What is of concern is people take these bias sources as fact. The issue is the arguments used to scare us away from moving to a format that they do not control or develop, either hold very little water or apply just as much to using MPEG-LA technologies as it does to VP8 technologies, with the caveat that you have to pay for the privilege.
For instance the assertion that you can never be 100% sure something is patent free (or more precise you have the rights to use a technology without fear of litigation) is on the surface true. Our patent system is fatally flawed in that it is over broad and largely opaque. One can never be sure that some patent might surface or a jury might interpret a patent in a way that is more favourable to the patent holder. The issue with the argument is it applies just as much to H.264 as it does to both Theora and VP8. It is a straw man argument. The logic follows very closely to extortion (legalized because of the flawed patent system) – if you pay us money and use our services we will ignore you but if you go somewhere else we might start harassing you, so you are safe if you stay with us, if you catch my drift. What we do know for a fact is organizations such as Google, Mozilla, Opera and Adobe, all of who have very capable team of lawyers, have come to the conclusion that it is safe to ship the utilize the VP8 codec.
As for the argument that hardware manufactures already support H.264, we wouldn’t get anywhere if we just accepted the status quo. If you look at the list of organizations supporting WebM you will see that they are not only heavy hitters, there is also a good number of them that are hardware vendors. I’m pretty sure we will see android devices coming out in the near future that support the format in the base system (and I’m sure we will see apps and plugins pop up almost instantly).
What about technical arguments that VP8 just isn’t good enough yet? Those arguments came from an x264 developer. (side note – x264 is an Open Source implementation of the H.264 format. While the code itself is under an Open Source license the usage of such code is not open as it is governed by the MPEG-LA patent portfolio). Good enough is a pretty subjective thing. Google seems to think it is good enough for YouTube and as we have seen with the improvements in Theora which started out as a pretty low quality encoder, a little time and effort is all that is needed. Unlike Theora however, which is reaching the upper level of constraints imposed on it by the format, VP8 is at the low end of its potential. With a modern video codec design and more interest due to the open sourcing of VP8, we can expect a stead stream of improvements to the encoder for years to come.
In the end this will all come down to supported codecs. Right now H.264 has the lead but with Google’s YouTube on board as well as all the major browsers which have rising market share, that might not be the case forever. MPEG-LA and H.264 developers will continue to sabre rattle in hopes that their FUD will scare off users instead of actually competing. Here is an idea, why not license H.264 in a more market friendly model? You know one, that doesn’t threaten and extort users and developers? I’m not holding my breath for that one.
May 21st, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Please be aware that x264 is an *open-source* implementation of the H.264 codec, and NOT the codec itself. This guy is a developer trying to make sure that if the world has to deal with a patented codec, then the best version of it might as well be open source. He’s not in league with the MPEG group.
The developer isn’t trying to scare you away from VP8. He’s trying to give you a heads-up that doing a run-around on the American patent system isn’t as easy as it looks.
It’s not a matter of open-sourcing a codec. The American patent system has deep claws in a lot of video compression techniques, and relabeling a brand new codec as open source isn’t a cure-all.
May 21st, 2010 at 12:57 pm
I have to agree with the poster above. The whole line about licensing x264 in a way to not extort users is entirely wrong. You have the codec, h264, and an open source encoder, x264, mixed up. Its a common misconception, but before accusing people of trying to spread FUD I think you should understand the difference.
Also, if you read the post by the x264 developer and are familiar with video encoding, then you’ll quickly see that his arguments are not necessarily against VP8. In fact, he believes that if the patent free argument turns out to be true, then it is a good alternative to Theora and Dirac on the patent-free video encoder front. His argument is that technologically, it cannot compete with h264, which is just a fact. h264 just has some better features that VP8 does not.
May 21st, 2010 at 1:00 pm
So, in the end, it really doesn’t matter how many lawyers that Google pays, say it’s ok to ship VP8 as open source. In the end, the courts decide, not the lawyers. This is the case with any software, not just VP8.
If it ends up in court, there are likely to be issues, and it will be a long drawn out process.
And it’s quite boring to hear people complain about the H.264 licensing being viral. So they took a hint from the FSF, and people want to complain about it. But if your camera shipped a codec that was GPL, and required all derived content to be GPL, the same people complaining now, wouldn’t be complaining, but would be happily violating the license they so claim to love, out of ignorance and folly. The real problems here aren’t that there are patents on one codec or another, but that the licensing for all of them generally sucks; licenses are vague and confusing; and nobody reads them.
May 21st, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Fixed some of the h.264, x264 references. It was posted by an x264 developer. I can’t say he is an h.264 developer unless he actually develops the spec. I think I correctly pointed out that the you can’t say things are free of patent issue argument applies to both H.264 equally. I also linked to a recent xkcd to illustrate the importance of infrastructure. As for x264 being open source, its usage is still governed by the MPEG-LA due to fact that patents will trump copyright in court. So while we have the source we still don’t retain the rights to use that source in any way we see fit.
So the developer who posted the blog basically says there is this vague issue with patents that may or may not come up while pushing a codec that has clear issues with with them. From an entity that likes to throw threats around.
As for vp8 not being able to compete, I have also pointed out that is a subjective analysis (Monty has debunked similar technical claims against Theora and Ogg). You can not call it ‘fact’.
May 21st, 2010 at 1:19 pm
I would also like to point out that I am not coming out against H.264, but only its licensing model and attacks against VP8.
May 21st, 2010 at 1:39 pm
@dobey – so you are saying we should just use H.264 because licensing sucks and we should ignore them? But VP8 has the backing of big player, better licensing terms and if current trends continue, will be just as ubiquitous as H.264 in a couple of years? It isn’t just Googles lawyers either. It is Mozilla, Adobe, AMD, Broadcom, ARM, TI, etc. If your assertion is correct then companies could never trust their lawyers. I did note above that no one can ever be 100% sure but that should stop us from doing the right thing and moving forward. Everyone has to make their own risk assessments. What I am faulting is using that as FUD to slow adoption and retain what is a virtual monopoly of the video market.
May 21st, 2010 at 2:02 pm
woops sorry for the double posting, my internet was going haywire. I think the router had a bad DNS entry.
Had to remove the other post which had a comment on it from Scott Dowdle:
Just a clarification. I think in many instances above, you refer to “x264″ when you really mean “H.264″. x264 *IS* free software licensed under the GPL.
While the license may be GPL it does not make it free to use due to known patent concerns. This makes it explicitly non-free. e.g. it is not in the spirit of the GPL and as such is not shipped by Debian or Fedora by default.
May 21st, 2010 at 2:05 pm
FUD has different contexts. The world of digital video is separate from, ex, Linux “kernel patent infringement” FUD. In video, the major players are research organizations and universities, not open source players, and major foundations of the science may already have been patented. [I'm not a lawyer in the field, so I only qualify here. But I do so with more realism than your article above.]
*Any* video compression technique may be covered by a previous invention or patent. It’s not nebulous – it’s likely. There are only so many known video compression techniques. Pretending that the threat of infringement is nonexistent isn’t a solution. I don’t like the MPEG license agreements, but they were created as a *solution* for businesses to minimize their patent risk with video technologies.
And some major businesses do want to buy in the patent pool protection model. Is the MPEG Group selling snake oil? Considering the American intellectual landscape, maybe not. The fears are not unfounded.
It’s not about the codecs, it’s about the intellectual status of video compression itself. MPEG isn’t the enemy. MPEG is shades of grey. The real adversary is video patents, and a brand new codec that still uses old video compression techniques might not be the answer.
May 21st, 2010 at 2:50 pm
You say Google is confident it’s okay to ship VP8. I rather doubt that assertion.
Take a look at it from a cynical Google lawyer’s perspective. Right now, Google already pays MPEG-LA to license h.264, they have that cost on their books, and the arrangement exists.
Things can go one of two ways. Either way, Google benefits.
1: MPEG-LA somehow doesn’t manage to sue someone for using VP8. Result? Google lauded as saviour of free world, Google-owned VP8 codec goes global, Google saves a bit of pocket change (the h.264 license fee).
2: MPEG-LA does successfully demonstrate that VP8 infringes its patents. Result? Google gets some good press (”plucky Google tries to save world from patent trolls, but is brought down by evil MPEG”), and gets a license from MPEG-LA to go right on using VP8 wherever it wants. Probably they’d barely have to pay an extra penny, I doubt MPEG-LA would be able to screw much more money out of them when they’re already licensing all the same patents for h.264 use.
So, sure, Google is talking a good fight about VP8 being patent-free. But if it turns out it hasn’t, what’s Google lost? Just about nothing. I doubt anyone at Google would lose much sleep if it turns out their public position on VP8’s patentedness turns out to be incorrect.
May 21st, 2010 at 3:01 pm
@J5 Well, based on personal experience, I probably wouldn’t trust the lawyers on such issues, either. Dealing with Novell’s legal department, even just trying to get clarification on licensing for Tango Icon Theme, was a horrible pain in the ass that never should have been.
I wasn’t saying we should ignore the issues. I was saying we *ARE* ignoring the issues. The MPEG-LA licensing is not all that different from the GPL. The fact that it’s a patented proprietary codec we’re talking about is what has everyone up in arms. If the license was exactly the same as it is now, but the codec was in fact more liberal itself (but still required the viral distribution), we wouldn’t be seeing all these complaints. People would in general just ignore the problem until they started being sued (if they ever actually did get sued).
In fact, most if not all of the content on YouTube is violating the MPEG-LA license for h.264 content, since they’re not distributing it in h.264 in the majority of cases. And fighting the viral license piece is going to present a much larger problem for the FSF, if anyone does in fact do so, and succeed. Because, if the viral licensing is challenged in court, and found to be invalid, it means that the viral licensing scheme of the GPL will also likely be invalidated. That would be a very interesting court case, though.
May 21st, 2010 at 3:24 pm
In response to a post by Florian Mueller of European software patent fame who said :
“I try to avoid “See I Told Ya So” types of posts, but in this case SCNR: WebM/VP8 patent risk for software developers” [slashdot.org] (and I previously made that suggestion on my blog in this post on video codecs [blogspot.com])
I’m all for open-sourcing useful program code but the question here is whether it’s fair for Google to expose an entire community, including the commercial adopters of open source, to this kind of risk. The situation surrounding Android serves as a warning. Google is unfortunately in favor of software patents and doesn’t do anything against the problem. They’re entitled to their patent strategy. But it’s important that third parties don’t run into patent problems in reliance upon Google’s vague promises.
If Google really believed that WebM/VP8 was safe from a patent perspective, then why in the world don’t its WebM license terms contain a hold-harmless clause or at least some basic indemnification (less value than holding harmless but better than nothing) in favor of developers adopting it?
People should think twice (at least!) before relying on any vague promises and they should also consider that Google isn’t the patent powerhouse that could start a “pissing contest” with the major contributors to the MPEG LA pool. I explained Google’s limits in that regard in this recent slashdot comment, The idea of Google countersuing isn’t realistic [slashdot.org].”
This is my response:
Listen you can’t speak out of both sides of your mouth at once. You cannot claim to be against software patents and vilify some group for failing to provide patent indemnification in the same breath. Providing patent indemnification is nothing other than racketeering, those purporting to do so are rackets(ie. MPEG-LA). I applaud the work of those who fight against software patents. But when you argue that Google should be providing patent indemnification you are actively undermining any strategy to rid the world of software patents. Shy of getting the laws regarding software patents changed(ie prohibiting them in the first place), the kind of patent provisions provided in Googles new license for webm *is* the most effective way of fighting software patents. Because of the shitty patent system in place whole industries have arisen which produce nothing other than Fear Uncertainty and Doubt.
In fact, it is hard to speak about patents *at all* without engaging in the same FUD-because FUD is the medium of the existence of patent speculator industry(of which Larry Horn, CEO of MPEG-LA, is a known patent-troll par-excellence). One aspect of the fight against software patents is the desire to protect the *users* from being sued into oblivion by patent holding entities(either patent-trolls or companies engaging in patent-trolling). Yet claiming that *users* should be indemnified *is* the raison-d’etre of patent racketeering industry. So if you argue that Google is failing to protect *users* you are, in stating such, proving, providing, and furthering the self-justification that such patent rackets(MPEG-LA) use themselves. And in so doing your words of caution and concern are nothing more than additional weapons in the arsenals of thepatent rackets ideological propaganda. The laws concerning patents(what is patentable, the terms of patents etc.) will only change once the patent situation in general has been sufficiently defused so as to limit the actual perceived value of patents. By insisting that *uers* should be indemnified one is ratcheting up the perceived patent threat, artificially inflating the value of said patents, which directly works against the goal of eliminating software patents. As long as everyone is terrified of potential patent suits those who support software patents already have their case(ie. why we supposedly need software patents) made for them by the very perceived fear. We must break this cycle. Googles new license goes an awful long way towards defusing the actual FUD atmosphere.
Stating that Google is exposing the community to patent litigation is literally the exact opposite of what is really happening. By getting extremely broad industry support for webm within hours of launching webm and coupling this support with patent provisions in the license which state that any filing of patent litigation against webm(vp8) will result in termination of the usage rights envisioned by license, they have dramatically reduced the likelihood of any kind of patent litigation. The effect of this is unequivocally, a *defusing* of the already existing FUD-bases patent insanity. As of this writing those who promote software patents will have more difficulty justifying why we need such patents and the patent rackets are struggling to find some kind of rhetorical self-justification with which they can continue to sell their poisonous FUD.
Flo I really do respect your work. But you are wrong on this one. And not only are you wrong, but you are dangerously close to speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Choose which side you are on. If you raise FUD be aware of what master you are serving.
May 21st, 2010 at 4:23 pm
I don’t want to sound too conspiratorial, but are all you guys defending the open source x264 project aware that they’re contacting all the copyright holders so that they can sell exceptions to the GPL? I don’t think that’s a terrible thing on its own, but it leads to a bad taste when he goes on to spread patent FUD and make bizarre claims about other folk’s open source code that he sees as competition. For example:
“The assembly code is much worse, with staggering levels of copy-paste coding, some completely useless instructions that do nothing at all, unaligned loads/stores to what-should-be aligned data structures, and a few functions that are simply written in unfathomably roundabout (and slower) ways. While the C code isn’t half bad, the assembly is clearly written by retarded monkeys.”
So the assembly is slow, slow, stupid and slow. Got that? I wonder how much faster it’ll get when rewritten by someone with a clue?
“the current one seems to be reasonably well-optimized and has SIMD assembly code for almost all major DSP functions, so I doubt it will get that much faster.”
Oh, I see, written by “retarded monkeys” yet they’ve left absolutely no room for optimization as they’ve squeezed ever last bit of performance out of the processor. Seems like VP8 can’t really win in this review. And yet if you cut through the hyperbole, he actually seems to think VP8 has a solid foundation. Should be interesting to see how this develops.
May 21st, 2010 at 4:54 pm
@Karl, I think you posted that reply in the wrong place? Florian hasn’t commented on this post at all. Perhaps you want to complain to him on slashdot instead?
May 21st, 2010 at 5:02 pm
@dobey – people (those who dislike being forced to use h.264) aren’t afraid that the license is viral. They are afraid of the actual content of the license which is pretty hostile (and more to the point they are afraid of the patents. The license just hint to cases where they may utilize their patent portfolio). GPL’s viral nature only pertains to copying code, not methods. Someone is free to clone any GPL code as long as they don’t plagiarize the original work. They can utilizes the binary in any way they wish as long as they provide access to the source if they distribute it. Software copyright is pretty well defined and narrow where software patents aren’t. Please don’t compare apples to oranges.
May 21st, 2010 at 8:52 pm
@dobey – of course Florain did not post this here, I shared this on this blog because concerns that J5 raised about FUD regarding patent protection in regards to Webm is being raised by none other that Florian Mueller, perhaps one of the most significant persons involved in the fight against software patents in europe.
The horrible irony is that even those fighting against software patents can hardly escape re-producing the exact same FUD from which the patent-trolls and proponents of software patents thrive and profit. I am not surprised that so many people have come out voicing FUD- after all the FUD campaign has been quite sucessfull.
So many people have a vested (personal/financial:x264 non-olet) interest in maintaining this FUD that it gets damned near impossible to figure out what is really going on. But it is a different issue when those who are seeking to rid ourselves of software patents, themselves, get sucked into the vortex of FUD.
Perhaps it was out of place quoting Florain on this blog site. Perhaps I violated a certain netiquette. If so simply say so and I apologize in advance. I merely did this to illustrate what I perceive is exactly what J5 is talking about. Since posting this Florian has responded to my post, and I to his follow up- we do not see eye to eye, but I still respect his work against software patents in europe.
May 22nd, 2010 at 2:03 am
The x264 post you refer to was actually a very good technical analysis of VP8. That you read it as negative is your perception problem, it was sticking to the facts. I prefer that to hysterical rants like yours any time.
As for his patent remarks: he simply remarked that VP8’s algorithms are very similar to H.264 and that he would be afraid of that. Well, that’s because he’s no lawyer and misses the fact that it’s enough to make a small change to side-step a patent.
You’ll notice that he remarks on these small differences and can’t make technical sense of them. That’s because they serve LEGAL purpose, not technical one.
See another (much more sensible than yours) take: http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2010/05/22/some-personal-comments-about-google-s-webm
Finally, I wouldn’t worry about MPEG-LA. They were claiming the same thing about Theora for years, but could never find a single patent worth a lawsuit.