Let me throw some FUD your way... equally likely (or unlikely). WebM does violate a patent in the MPEG-LA pool. At that point Google needs to rev every instance of WebM, from browser to every video encoded with WebM. MPEG-LA could go after anyone who encoded a video with WebM. And given MPEG-LA's patent pool size (which includes H264, VC-1, MPEG-2, etc...).
In contrast for H264 to violate it patent it would have to violate something not in the patent pool, and something not held by a licensor, e.g., WMV or Quicktime (as these would in good faith be in the patent pool). That list is LOT smaller. Most people think that they likely own al
And note, Google does NOT offer indemnification. If they did, and they should, that would change the equation on this FUD a fair bit.
Who offers indemnification against unexpected patent threats in their codec licenses? Expecting Google to indemnify WebM users or MPEG-LA to indemnify H264 users are equally ridiculous. It's uncountable downside with very little upside.
Let me throw some FUD your way... equally likely (or unlikely). WebM does violate a patent in the MPEG-LA pool. At that point Google needs to rev every instance of WebM, from browser to every video encoded with WebM. MPEG-LA could go after anyone who encoded a video with WebM. And given MPEG-LA's patent pool size (which includes H264, VC-1, MPEG-2, etc...).
In contrast for H264 to violate it patent it would have to violate something not in the patent pool, and something not held by a licensor, e.g., WMV or Quicktime (as these would in good faith be in the patent pool). That list is LOT smaller. Most people think that they likely own al
And note, Google does NOT offer indemnification. If they did, and they should, that would change the equation on this FUD a fair bit.