> You're right, Garret-Glaser isn't a patent attorney. On the other hand, he's an x264 developer intimately familiar with the standard.
In other words, he's definitely qualified to comment how similar VP8 might be, which few people deny, and not very well qualified to comment how infringing VP8 might be.
"MPEG LA doesn't favor one codec technology over another; we are like a convenience store that offers patent licenses for any number of codecs as a service to the market." (quoted in "Patent cloud looms over Google Web video plan," http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20006245-264.html?tag=mnco...)
Infringing or not, you may be like the local merchant who is forced to buy "insurance" to stay safe.
So, why didn't we see any action by the MPEG-LA and only ominous threats and some innuendo?
WebM is arguably the currently biggest threat to the goose that lays MPEG-LA's golden eggs. See also how they backtracked on royalties regarding web usage (even though you're still inviting a trojan codec into your home).
It reminds me at Microsoft's 250 or so patents over Linux, "but we won't tell you what they are, sucker"!
> So, why didn't we see any action by the MPEG-LA and only ominous threats and some innuendo?
Because if we did see action, we'd find out once for and for all whether their innuendo has anything solid behind it. It's the standard patent FUD process, aided by everyone who says "it's probably patent encumbered", "we don't know whether it's unencumbered".
It's much better to imply they can crush you rather than actually try to crush you and risk failure. And the best part is that by implying they can crush you but not actually doing so, they can appear to be exercising benevolent goodwill while the FUD does most of the crushing for them, risk-free.
Nobody thinks MPEG-LA is being benevolent. The world is not a comic book storyboard. MPEG-LA isn't going to invest in a patent suit that will cost both sides tens of millions of dollars until they're reasonably sure the investment will pay off. That isn't some Orwellian plot; it's simply good business sense.
The impression I get is that everyone who brings up the "but MPEG-LA hasn't sued anyone, just threatened, they're all talk!" objection also believes that lawsuits are straightforward and that any company with a couple mil in the bank can launch one at a moment's notice. It's true, companies can sue you at a moment's notice, because it doesn't much to sue you and there's little to lose. The situation is a lot different when it's MPEG-LA vs. a patent infringer plus the resources of everyone who would like to see the patent portfolio fail.
In other words, he's definitely qualified to comment how similar VP8 might be, which few people deny, and not very well qualified to comment how infringing VP8 might be.