One of the most critical patent lawsuits raging on at the moment is between Google’s Motorola Mobility unit and Microsoft, with the former asserting infringement of IPR associated with the H.264 codec standard. This has raised important issues of how standards-essential patents are licensed, which have been taken up by the EU and US authorities and by industry bodies. It has also taken on an interesting twist since Google bought Motorola, since the search giant is keen to sideline H.264 in favor of its own WebM, an open source technology based on the VP8 codec. Just to make matters more intriguing, Microsoft is also working on the same roadmap, but with a different stance to that of Google, throwing a whole new light on the IPR lawsuits in Germany.
The H.264 standard is well established and Google itself supports it, but it is in a particular field ‘ real time web communications ‘ where it sees the chance to establish its alternative. It wants V8 to be mandated in the upcoming WebRTC (real time communications) standard, an effort in which it will be opposed by the H.264 community and also by a separate effort from Microsoft.
The draft specifications for WebRTC, from the W3C standards body, were released a few weeks ago and do not specify a particular codec. They merely say: “User agents negotiate the codec resolution, bitrate, and other media parameters.” But Google wants to exclude codecs which carry royalties, as H.264 does, via the MPEG4 licensing program. Instead, it is pushing the open source V8, in a common tactic of harnessing open credentials to promote a technology in which it has taken the development lead.
WebRTC aims to create a standard for web-based audio and video conferencing using HTML5 in the browser, without any plug-ins. With echoes of previous industry splits over Flash and other technologies, Apple may go its own way. It is currently following a proprietary route in Safari and Facetime, though based on H.264, making it the most committed ‘ and powerful ‘ backer of that codec. By contrast, Firefox and Opera do not support H.264 directly because of the royalties, though they can use the H.264 codecs within Windows or Mac OS X. These two browsers, plus Google Chrome and Microsoft Internet Explorer/Skype, will all support WebRTC. All except Microsoft have expressed support for V8, but that still means a difficult road ahead for Google.
In particular, if it excludes or sidelines H.264 in Chrome, it will find itself in the position Apple was over boycotting mobile Flash ‘ Chrome and Android devices (whose browsers are converging) will not play H.264 video content perfectly, while Apple products will, handing a marketing tool to Google’s rival on a plate. Mozilla’s CTO Brendan Eich wrote in a recent blog post: “Google is in my opinion not going to ship mobile browsers this year or next that fail to play H.264 content that Apple plays perfectly. Whatever happens in the very long run, Mozilla can’t wait for such an event.’ Although Mozilla has lobbied against H.264, Eich added: “What I do know for certain is this: H.264 is absolutely required right now to compete on mobile. I do not believe that we can reject H.264 content in Firefox on Android or in B2G [Boot2Gecko] and survive the shift to mobile.”
Google may have a difficult fight on its hands, but it is serious about it, and allowing Motorola to remain so aggressive about its H.264 patents may be part of that strategy ‘ like Microsoft with its Android suits, such actions make the codec standard less attractive by increasing the risk of litigation and hefty fees. (However, Google will have to tread carefully to avoid breaking the pledges made to antitrust bodies that it would not abuse its patent power if it were allowed to buy the handset maker.)
The search giant has made several acquisitions to create its own solution for WebRTC, starting with On2, developer of the V8 codec, which it then made open source as WebM. It has also acquired a string of firms specializing in real time voice and video web communications – GrandCentral (now the basis of Google Voice), Gizmo5 (formerly SIPphone), and Global IP Solutions, maker of Skype-alike VoIP, video and conferencing products.
However, despite early speculation, it has not been as aggressive about pushing WebM as some expected and, while it supports it on Android, it has not excluded the MPEG4 option. Eich has no surprise about this, writing: ‘Don’t ask Google why they bought On2 but failed to push WebM to the exclusion of H.264 on Android. The question answers itself.” But the emergence of WebRTC potentially gives Google another shot, where there are fewer entrenched positions ‘ if it can make WebM support mandatory in that standard, it will certainly improve its credibility and developer support in streaming video applications.
Meanwhile, Microsoft itself is contributing its own elements to the WebRTC working group, notably CU-RTC-Web (Customizable, Ubiquitous Real Time Communication over the Web). Since the acquisition of Skype, Microsoft, like Google, has a critical interest in shaping web voice and video communications and WebRTC would certainly be an important addition to Skype’s current work on a browser-based version of its software. It would modernize the software and allow it to interoperate with other services like GoogleTalk.
Unlike Google and Mozilla, Microsoft has not implemented draft versions of WebRTC in its browsers, and it is taking a different approach with CU-RTC-Web anyway. In contrast to Google’s stance, it wants a flexible standard with no single codec specified. Instead of elements like codecs, or the way media is sent, being predetermined, there will be flexibility for developers to optimize the techniques for their own services. Microsoft says the experience it has gained from Skype has indicated the pitfalls of incompatibilities or over-rigid standards in driving uptake of VoIP.
Microsoft is not so much trying to define the future of real time web communications ‘ even with Skype, it is in a poorer position to do that than the real web powerhouses ‘ but to ensure that Google and Mozilla do not get everything their own way. It has embraced the vision of pushing everything into the browser ‘ not just apps and data, but voice and video too ‘ belatedly, and hopes to leverage Skype to ensure it has a place at the table.