I'm not sure why you think I have it backwards. That's precisely the point - if MPEG-LA couldn't get Google to license the patent pool then other patent holders in the pool might jump ship too.
Imagine if you are patent-holder-X, present scenario: We want to transpose the MacGuffin, but that is covered by the patents held by ZZZ Corp. But that's ok, because ZZZ Corp is in the MPEG-LA patent pool, and the patent is covered by our license so we'll just do it. Happy days at ZZZ Corp
Scenario if Google didn't pay the license: We want to transpose the MacGuffin, but that is covered by the patents held by ZZZ Corp. So lets see what VP8 does instead... hmm.. we can do that. And now we don't need out MPEG-LA license, so lets drop paying that.
Meanwhile at ZZZ Corp: no we aren't getting any revenue from MPEG-LA for out patent on transposing MacGuffin. But look: Apple and Microsoft and Adobe all transpose the MacGuffin exactly how the patent explains to do it. If we drop out of the patent pool now, and then file a new derivative patent on fast MacGuffin transposing, then everyone will have to pay us fees themselves, or not implement the new, faster MacGuffin transpose.
>That's precisely the point - if MPEG-LA couldn't get Google to license the patent pool then other patent holders in the pool might jump ship too.
But there is no pool for VP8. I'm not aware of anyone being able to articulate a specific patent that VP8 is alleged to infringe. The point of a patent pool for VP8 could never be to actually license anyone because the only reason to use it over H.264 is if it's royalty-free. The point of threatening to create the pool is to cause FUD as to its royalty-free status. The "license" Google just bought is them paying MPEG-LA to shove off and stop spreading FUD about VP8.
Comments
I'm not sure why you think I have it backwards. That's precisely the point - if MPEG-LA couldn't get Google to license the patent pool then other patent holders in the pool might jump ship too.
Imagine if you are patent-holder-X, present scenario: We want to transpose the MacGuffin, but that is covered by the patents held by ZZZ Corp. But that's ok, because ZZZ Corp is in the MPEG-LA patent pool, and the patent is covered by our license so we'll just do it. Happy days at ZZZ Corp
Scenario if Google didn't pay the license: We want to transpose the MacGuffin, but that is covered by the patents held by ZZZ Corp. So lets see what VP8 does instead... hmm.. we can do that. And now we don't need out MPEG-LA license, so lets drop paying that.
Meanwhile at ZZZ Corp: no we aren't getting any revenue from MPEG-LA for out patent on transposing MacGuffin. But look: Apple and Microsoft and Adobe all transpose the MacGuffin exactly how the patent explains to do it. If we drop out of the patent pool now, and then file a new derivative patent on fast MacGuffin transposing, then everyone will have to pay us fees themselves, or not implement the new, faster MacGuffin transpose.
>That's precisely the point - if MPEG-LA couldn't get Google to license the patent pool then other patent holders in the pool might jump ship too.
But there is no pool for VP8. I'm not aware of anyone being able to articulate a specific patent that VP8 is alleged to infringe. The point of a patent pool for VP8 could never be to actually license anyone because the only reason to use it over H.264 is if it's royalty-free. The point of threatening to create the pool is to cause FUD as to its royalty-free status. The "license" Google just bought is them paying MPEG-LA to shove off and stop spreading FUD about VP8.