Now that Google and patent license administrator MPEGLA have announced an agreement about the VP8 codec (press release here), questions will arise about next steps.
A Google representative has already elaborated here to the Internet Engineering Task Force about Google’s proposal at the last MPEG meeting to standardize VP8 as an official MPEG standard:
And now, we have taken taken two significant steps that we hope will make the situation clear to all:7. Submitted VP8 to ISO SC29/WG11 (MPEG) in January of this year for standardization.8. Invested a significant amount of time and resources into reaching an agreement with the MPEG LA, to provide further reassurances.
For those who are looking for public information, the actual proposal to MPEG (document M28182) was publicly released a few days ago on an IETF mailing list (here).
The MPEG meeting resolutions about Google’s proposal are below.
[UPDATE: This post got noticed and referenced in a few of articles:
- The H Open: “VP8 could become MPEG standard“
- ZDNet: “Google and MPEG LA settle long-running VP8/H.264 patent dispute“
- OSNews: “Google called the MPEG-LA’s bluff, and won“
From Resolutions, the 103rd SC 29/WG 11 Meeting, 2013-01-21/25, Geneva, Switzerland [SC 29/WG 11 N 13250]
14.1 Internet Video Coding
14.1.1 The Video subgroup recommends approval of the following documents:
|Exploration – Internet Video Coding|
|13353||Internet Video Coding Test Model (ITM) v 4.0||N||13/02/20|
|13354||IVC Core Experiment CE1: Overall Codec Testing||N||13/01/25|
|13355||IVC Core Experiment CE2: Improvements of ITM||N||13/01/25|
14.1.2 The video subgroup would like to point out that an alternative technology with potential benefits over the current ITM4 has been proposed in M28182 and M28187 for consideration in the IVC standardization. A Core Experiment (CE1) was defined for systematic testing under comparable conditions. NBs and interested experts are encouraged to perform further study of the technology proposed in M28182 and M28187 regarding the IVC requirements.
14.1.3 The contributors of M28182 and M28187 are asked to provide more information about potential restrictions which might prohibit the progressing of their technology into an MPEG standard, in case it would be considered beneficial from the perspective of IVC development.
14.1.4 WG11 requests its members to review M28182 and M28187 and provide suggestions concerning their usability in the IVC process.
14.1.5 WG11 thanks the AUNB for the comment on IVC (M28365). WG11 considers the actions taken at this meeting to be sufficient in responding to AUNB’s request.
14.1.6 The video subgroup thanks ITU-T for the viewing equipment that was used in the context of evaluating IVC contributions.