Nokia battles Google to kill open video

Last month, I wrote about the battle between open source video tools and the entrenched industry around video. Google announced it had reached an accommodation with MPEG-LA to no longer imply that VP8 was threatened by MPEG-LA patents and it hoped to have VP8 standardized by MPEG.

At the IETF meeting where Google’s staff explained the proposal, it was clear that the standards arbiters working for the companies with deep investments in MPEG H.264 were not going to make life easy. In contrast with the treatment received by other speakers, the Google speakers were constantly challenged by meeting attendees associated with H.264 — almost to the point of harassment. It also became apparent that Nokia — a company that, prior to its change of direction to become part of Microsoft’s hegemony, had supported open source approaches — was poised to mount a challenge to VP8.

[ Simon Phipps tells it like it is: Why software patents are evil. | Video codecs: The ugly business behind pretty pictures | Track the latest trends in open source with InfoWorld’s Technology: Open Source newsletter. ]

Since then, the challenge from Nokia has gained prominence. In an official filing responding to VP8’s request for comments, Nokia has asserted it owns a large portfolio of software patents that it believes would need licensing to implement VP8 in certain contexts. More important, Nokia has stated it is not willing to license its patents. Since Nokia is not a member of MPEG-LA, licenses to its patents are not made available under the agreement with Google.

Does this mean a dead halt for VP8 and, by implication, for the exciting WebRTC proposal for Web browsers to have standard and open audio/video real-time capabilities? Not necessarily. The immediate response to this news from the open source community was to look for ways to render Nokia’s patents invalid. As Groklaw points out, that may not be as hard as it seems. First, the reportedly enormous list of patents in Nokia’s declaration seems to involve a great deal of duplication, with the same patents filed in multiple jurisdictions. Finding strong reasons for a patent being considered invalid in one may help prove it’s invalid in the rest.

Second, the patents include a number of “continuations” — requests by Nokia for second chances to prove some aspect of the patent that was found questionable really is OK. Mark Webbink points out:

The USPTO has been in no hurry to process these reconsideration requests. As a general rule, if the prosecution of the patent has taken this long (9 years) then it is fair to venture that there are some significant issues with the subject matter claimed.

Finally, there’s mounting evidence that software patents are at last being considered with much more skepticism. Just last week, we heard that Red Hat and Rackspace had definitively beaten a patent troll. Even more impressive, victory was achieved in the country’s most patent-friendly court, and it was achieved not by extensive argument but with the judge simply accepting Red Hat’s motion that the case should be dismissed because the patents were invalid.

Perhaps this challenge from Nokia is more of a diversion than a roadblock. The value of VP8 extends further than the Web browser; it’s a format for which open source design tools can be created and distribution can be performed without first seeking permission, so it’s highly desirable in a market increasingly populated with smaller producers, both commercial and noncommercial. VP8 support is already present in many browsers and provides a useful target format for these smaller producers.

I am hopeful that Nokia’s patents thicket can be cleared with easily available tools in many hands. If so, we can expect the use of VP8 to spread and grow across the Internet.

Which leaves one unanswered question: Why is Nokia trying to block VP8? Clearly, it understands the needs of the open source community to have an open format that can be used without seeking permission from patent holders. It doesn’t appear to want to collect royalties on vP8 usage. Why then would Nokia try to block VP8 and shoo developers back into the unsavory clutches of rent-seeking patent holders?

Whatever the reason, Nokia burned a great deal of its remaining credibility in the open source community. I hope it was worth it for the company and its shareholders.

This article, “Nokia battles Google to kill open video,” was originally published at InfoWorld.com. Read more of the Open Sources blog and follow the latest developments in open source at InfoWorld.com. For the latest business technology news, follow InfoWorld.com on Twitter.