When MPEG LA first announced the VP8 pool formation, a rush of companies applied to be in the pool, partly because everyone wanted to see what everyone else had. That gave way to some amount of disappointment. And by 'some amount' I mean 'rather a lot really, more than the MPEG-LA would care to admit.'

Eventually, things whittled down to a few holdouts. Those '11 patent holders' do not assert they have patents that cover the spec. They said '_may_ cover'. The press release itself repeats this. Then these patent holders said 'and we're willing to make that vague threat go away for a little cash'. Google paid the cash. This is what lawyers do.

That's why it's a huge newsworthy deal when companies like NewEgg actually take the more expensive out and litigate a patent. It is always more expensive than settling, even if you'd win the case, and very few companies are willing or able to do it. Google was probably able, but not willing.

We deal with this in the IETF all the time. Someone files a draft and a slew of companies file IPR statements that claim they have patents that 'may' read on the draft. Unlike other SDOs though, the IETF requires them to actually list the patent numbers so we can analyze and refute. And despite unequivocal third-party analyses stating 'there is no possibility patent X applies', these companies still present their discredited IPR statements to 'customers' and mention that these customers may be sued if they don't license. This is not the exception; this is standard operating procedure in the industry. These licensing tactics, for example, account for more than half of Qualcomm's total corporate income.

It's this last threat that Google paid a nominal sum to make go away. It's the best anyone can hope for in a broken system. If those 11 patent holders had a strong claim, it is exceedingly unlikely they would have agreed to a perpetual, transferable, royalty free license.

I'll add my own thoughts here, also posted at http://xiphmont.livejournal.com/59893.html

"After a decade of the MPEG LA saying they were coming to destroy the FOSS codec movement, with none other than the late Steve Jobs himself chiming in, today the Licensing Authority announced what we already knew.

They got nothing. There will be no Theora patent pool. There will be no VP8 patent pool. There will be no VPnext patent pool.

We knew that of course, we always did. It's just that I never, in a million years, expected them to put it in writing and walk away. The wording suggests Google paid some money to grease this along, and the agreement wording is interesting [and instructive] but make no mistake: Google won. Full stop.

This is not an unconditional win for FOSS, of course, the LA narrowed the scope of the agreement as much as they could in return for agreeing to stop being a pissy, anti-competetive brat. But this is still huge. We can work with this.

For at least the immediate future, I shall have to think some uncharacteristically nice things about the MPEG LA.*

*Apologies to Rep. Barney Frank"

I own two Das's... they rock.

I recommend the blank-keyed "stealth" model. It not only keeps those without any computer skills away from your terminal (some people look at a blank keyboard, and literally don't know what to do), but they're also ideal for home. Mine keeps my non-touch-typist kids away from my computer.

>If you insist on recording in stereo though, you might do as they did, and record with a Mid-Side array and use a matrix to decode back to L-R, so you can control the stereo spread in post-production.

That would not have controlled the reverb; the space this was recorded in was a concrete floor with concrete walls and no acoustic treatment. Like I said, it was a tradeoff, and one that was successful if not perfect.

Oh! And 'linear' was completely wrong. I don't know how I braino-ed that in there, the [at very least perceived] distortion/noise tradeoff is not linear.

Right, and this is why dither is only applied to 'last-mile' audio intended to be consumed. Dither 'screws' you in other ways if you intend to use that audio in production, such as losing all the property of removing the distortion, yet still having the additive noise. But we're still talking about changes 100+dB down.

>Counter nitpick: Monty, as a professional motion picture sound designer, I cannot tell you how distracting it is to hear your voice constantly changing its pan across the stereo field :)

The audio was recorded with a stereo pair. It wasn't panned artificially :-) Look down a few comments for more about this, you weren't the only person to complain.

I think it's more "I want people to know why I do the stupid things I do." Latent fear of being committed.

As a nitpick, you get dithering losses _or_ quantization distortion, or a linear tradeoff between the two. You don't get the worst case of both on top of each other unless you screw up.

Without dither, worst case, all your 16 bit quant distortion products will be under -100dB regardless of input amplitude. I actually display the worst case in the video to make it easy to see. Quantization distortion aliases, and I chose an integer sample period so the aliased distortion would always land in the same bins after folding. If I hadn't, it would have spread out more and been even lower. If I had chosen a relatively prime frequency, the quantization distortion would have spread out across all bins equally.

Did you know that similar to the previous study, another effect found was that expert programmers rarely if ever look at code comments. On the other hand, novices spent majority of their time on comments if they are available instead of looking at the code. I can find the citation a little later since I don't have access to my bib db right now.

Canonical Has Been Watching, and It Says You're Getting Used To Unity

Better yet:
    Throw pine cones at 24 Sussex Dr. in Ottawa.

There may be legal limits on 3(b).. it does seem unreasonable at that extreme.

In reality, though, the simple answer is use 3(a) - give them the source right away and end your obligation immediatley.

The GPL isn't about compensating people for group projects....

If you don't have the source, or a binary, then you have no work to which the GPL can apply in the first place.

To be really really obtuse - only the rightsholders who's work he based his own on (DOSBox) are in a position to say if he is violating their licenses or not - the authors could have collectively licensed the sotware to him and not spoken publicly about it.

I realize that didn't happen.... but for the sake of argument.