Can you support this statement? Because Google didn't even create VP8 - they bought it with ON2. I can't find anything that supports your statement.
H264 isn't "an algorithm" its a pretty massive collection of different algorithms. I actually find it a bit difficult its not infringing in some way and this analysis seems to confirm this.
Unfortunately I'm just quoting my own anecdotal knowledge of the discussions that raged about VP8 when Google released it.
I don't think your link contradicts what I said - in fact, in a way it gels very well with it: the conclusion is that VP8 is essentially H.264 with all sorts of bits missing and tweaks that in most cases make it worse than H.264. That's exactly what you would expect if someone took a patented algorithm and went through it point by point to work around the patented parts.
That very link describes multiples places where VP8 does things different to H.264 and basically calls them idiots for not doing it the H.264 way yet doesn't connect this to the patent situation that he is simultaneously accusing them of being idiots about because it is too similar to H.264. He can't have it both ways.
H264 isn't "an algorithm" its a pretty massive collection of different algorithms. I actually find it a bit difficult its not infringing in some way and this analysis seems to confirm this.
http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/377