I honestly don't know why Google bothered to buy the company in the first place. Seems an odd place to assert a competing position.
Instead I would much prefer to see standards made available under low royalty, FRAND terms. This has worked to great effect for WiFi, USB, Bluetooth etc.
But of course that is looking harder to achieve with FRAND abusers like Google around.
FRAND works fine for hardware because by the time you spend $100 to manufacture and ship the thing you can spend $5 licensing patents.
It fails miserably for software because it's incompatible with free software, which means that the free software people have to create a competing standard that they can implement and we get useless fragmentation that hurts everybody. Produce something compatible with free software to begin with and none of that needs to happen.
I mean WTF, just require the patent holders to license the patents royalty free for free software implementations in order to have their patents included in the standard, and then they can still collect royalties from manufacturers who do hardware implementations. It's not like they were going to get any royalties from free software developers in the first place.
Old habits die hard; old industries die harder.
Abuse of FRAND patents is a different matter, but I will point out that it was in retaliation for asserting some pretty ridiculous patents in the first place. The nice thing about VP8 is that, even if Google turns evil (or, if you're of the opinion they already are, even more evil), the patent promise they granted is irrevocable.
I mentioned Google Glass for instance, to which you retorted that Google Glass was 'vapourware'. Funny enough you then spent tons of posts trying to raise concerns regarding Google Glass privacy implications, you sure spend alot of time addressing vapourware.
It's almost as if you had an anti-Google agenda...
Well color me surprised!
