> WebM wasn't an option because it didn't even exist yet.
And when WebMx is released, everybody will hound those who don't immediately change their product strategy to fit this. This is also a good reason for why Apple isn't using WebM: it's not a standard, it's as controlled by Google as Flash is controlled by Adobe.
They're essentially giving a bunch of control of their device to an outside company.
They're not irrevcably licensed. If you find that WebM does actually violate your patents you can't sue otherwise you lose your license to all of the other patents.
Realistically Google should not revoke your licenses unless you lose the lawsuit (not when filed), because if they have legitimately infringed your patent then it seems like blackmail to keep them from acting on it by such a method.
You're quite right, but I think its ridiculous to ask Google to give you a free license to their patents even as you are suing them for infringing yours.
They're the ones pushing that this be the defactor standard for web video. If that's the case then they shouldn't attempt to block a party from exercising their patent rights by effectively threatening that if they do so they won't have any access to video on the web.
Could you imagine MS saying in their Windows license agreement saying that they can revoke your licenses if you sue them over a patent?
And that's why nobody sane will try to screw with them. Nobody wants to lose the ability to do video on the internet during next 20 (plus/minus) years.
That "We may have stolen your technology" is pushing it.
Google did due diligence before buying On2 with VP8. They did patent search. If anyone appears now with some patent claim against VP8, suing left and right users of VP8, it does not show good faith on their part.
The patent thing is just FUD by Apple proponents. But, I won't support WebM until it's an ISO standard, frozen is just a promise at this point.
Their own site says "dedicated to developing a high-quality..." which, taken literally, means that the project is still underway. Also listed on the front page: "Submit patches and improvements" Yet again, saying that it's a work in progress.
The encoder is being improved, and the decoder is being optimised for speed on various platforms but the spec defines what the decoder does and it was effectively frozen as soon as Google converted a bunch of Youtube videos and got hardware manufacturers on board. Any change to the format would break existing content (most of Youtube) and shipping hardware.
ISO leads something to be desired: witness the glacial pace of C++0x (now C++1x). I'd prefer some standardization of VP8 - don't get me wrong - but going through ISO would likely be a mistake.
And when WebMx is released, everybody will hound those who don't immediately change their product strategy to fit this. This is also a good reason for why Apple isn't using WebM: it's not a standard, it's as controlled by Google as Flash is controlled by Adobe.
They're essentially giving a bunch of control of their device to an outside company.