Blam! Max Sound flings vid codec sueball number four at Google

Re: Notes left by execs

I guess it depends on what the notes are about. If the notes just outright say "We're stealing this shit!", then sure. But if the notes are about a certain aspect of their code that isn't patented, for instance printf(...), it would depend on where printf() is and how it's used.

I don't know, there just really isn't a way we can know who is guilty or not unless we see the actual code Vs. code. Then, even if it's clear to us, you still have the lawyers. This is sort of like SCO Vs. IBM (at least in the beginning), we only knew what the accusations were, and how each sides lawyers perceived them. In that case, I think they were down to something like 8 lines of infringement, which I'm not even sure if those were infringing.

Oh, and WTF does the Don't be Evil mantra have to do with anything? This is like suing Coca-Cola for infringement on the word "Enjoy"...the mantra is just a company line, not a standard to be taken as something that can be held accountable in court.

Re: Notes left by execs

Unless the notes indicate that Google could implement a different method not covered by the patent, which would be fair game. The existence of the notes needs to coincide with them actually meaning what Max Sounds lawyers claim.

Re: BLAM! WTF happened to the home page!!!

BTW, I like the big ass story poster, I just don't like the fact I can't figure out how to change the story poster...no arrows or anything like that.

Actually, I think the big ass story poster is a nice touch in a new'ish directiong. Props to whoever came up with it (now just give me my navigational arrows back!)

Re: Google's free Codec

Doesn't help if the patent holder is not part of MPEG LA's patent pool, which Max Sound and VSL are not. Presumably they are suing Google / YouTube because they have the deepest pockets, but if successful you can expect every one of MPEG LA's licensees to get sued as well.

MPEG LA is a *voluntary* grouping of patent holders who have chosen to offer licences for their patents as a group. There is no compulsion for any patent holder to join and there can still be submarine patents held by anyone else. If the holder participated in the standardisation process, they're supposed to offer the patents on a FRAND basis, but if the standard accidentally includes something that was patented by a third party, all implementers could be liable for heavy royalties and discriminatory behaviour.

It is simply not practical to have a fully-vetted standard. There are too many patents issued every year even for experts to keep up, and they're not readable by engineers so there's really no telling what might turn out to be considered an infringement.

Still, I think it's better to go with standards that are developed in the open with the opportunity for patents to be disclosed and either worked around, or held under FRAND promises (though this may not be worth much when companies demand huge percentages of sale price from every vendor - it's not discriminatory if you're screwing everyone). VPx and other privately-developed encodings will always suffer more from submarine patents than the ISO/IEC/ITU families.