Comments on: Google Buys On2

By: B-RAD

B-RAD — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:25:33 +0000

There are 2-3 lawsuits underway to fight this deal as On2 Shareholders do not want to end up getting screwed. It should get interesting as this story is far from over.

By: markk

markk — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 07:59:18 +0000

IMHO this is simply about having some deep patents to use in defense if needed later. I don’t see a sudden move from h264, though who knows what holds down the line several years on as the h264 license terms change

By: g

Sat, 08 Aug 2009 20:35:25 +0000

lets see google open source VP8!!! GO GOOOOOOOOOOOGLE!

By: Robert

Robert — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 02:22:32 +0000

@Toe: No, I’m suggesting that nobody knows definitively. And no, that doesn’t mean anything negative for Google. Just something they will be evaluating before making any moves.

By: Toe

Toe — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 22:16:07 +0000

@Robert: So basically you’re suggesting that there may have already been an IP infringement in VP3 in its original open-sourced form? If that’s the case, then Google just bought themselves a bomb that could blow up in their faces.

By: Robert

Robert — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 12:50:11 +0000

@Toe: AFAIK when it was open sourced, they didn’t provide documentation of every line of code and it’s origin. Generally speaking open sourcing code generally happens as a tarball or a new public repo to prevent svn comments which may contain proprietary information (business strategy, partner info, etc.) from leaking out.

The whole SCO/Linux case was essentially about the origin of some code, it’s really not that different of a situation.

What happened after it was open sourced is generally less of a concern since the process is so open. It’s the closed source origin that tends to be more troublesome.

By: voracity

voracity — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 12:09:24 +0000

Huh. Didn’t see that one coming. Google has a pretty good track record on openness, but what they do with On2′s technologies will finally decide the kind of company they really are.

My fingers are firmly crossed.

By: j

Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:10:07 +0000

@Duv: Ogg can contain any codec, one just has to specify how it is embedded, there is i.e. Ogg Dirac. Xiph.Org only provides mappings for open and free codecs. so if there is an open VP6/VP7/VP8 variant. providing a way to embed this in Ogg along with Vorbis, Speex or CELT will be possible.

By: dave

dave — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 08:50:05 +0000

@Toe: note that Google won’t have to “dig into a codebase they didn’t create themselves”, as they’ve also bought the people who created it, and should therefore know it best.

The more I read about VP7 and VP8 the more I think video conferencing and mobile playback were big motivators here. Hopefully that was just a cherry on top of the ability to release a royalty-free codec which is one of the VP families claims to fame. Apparently most other “independent” you might have heard of licence key technology from MPEG rather than work around them as On2 did.

By: Toe

Toe — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 04:57:53 +0000

Robert: Is there something stopping Google from using that same money and manpower to disprove those arguments against Theora?

Either way, they’re gonna have to dig into a codebase they didn’t create themselves. It’s not like they didn’t already have access to Theora’s source code. “We don’t know the full evolution of the code”? Isn’t that what SVN history is for? And I’d bet that Monty & co would be willing to explain their changes.

Plus I’d imagine that the cost of doing a full investigation of Theora would be less than the cost of doing a full investigation of VP# plus the $106 million buyout price.