17 ms·
The last patent on AC-3 (Dolby Digital) expires at midnight
- bubblethink 10y agoGood news for Fedora ? With native mp3 and ac-3 decoding in 2017, who knows what this new world holds in store for us. /s
- johnny22 10y agofedora finally ships an mp3 decoder, but won't ship the encoder until then.
- bubblethink 10y agoYeah, it was over the news when they announced that. There's also some effort to get H264 through cisco's openh264, but that's also very basic and doesn't do most of the useful stuff
- Keverw 10y ago20 years just seems way too long for a patent, especially as fast that the tech industry moves nowadays. Even 3 or 5 years would be better if we're going to keep having government granted monopolies.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- helthanatos 10y agoJust think about the nonsense Disney did with all the characters that should be in the public sector... But aren't... I don't understand why the patent office doesn't understand the point of a patent - to protect a novel idea, not to allow people to patent everything and she each other over it...
- johnny22 10y agoisn't that a copyright issue, not a patent issue?
- helthanatos 10y agoYeah. Example was copyright but I was thinking of patents...
- coldtea 10y ago>I don't understand why the patent office doesn't understand the point of a patent That's the copyright office. And they understand it fine, but they take orders from lawmakers who are paid under the table (or over it) to extend copyrights.
- gravypod 10y agoTechnically drugs have the same patent lifespan (3 years, 2 year extension for testing/R&D). Sadly there are ways to game the system (only patenting part of the molecule, part of the process, part of the anything) and then continually keeping the hold for years and years on specific drugs. The same would happen in software. They'd write all the software, patent a part of it, and then repatend a different part of the software as time went on. If anyone else attempted to patent an unpatented part they claim they invented it first and will be awarded the patent (because it is their patent). If anyone uses an unpatented part they just file for the patent and sue when they're awarded it. What's broken isn't the lifespan, it's the patent system.
- beached_whale 10y agoThe US went first-to-file in 2011 for those that live or do business there. And in software, it would be trivial to determine the other parts.
- gravypod 10y agoIt seems like the exact date was March 16, 2013 and if so then I stand corrected on that part. I thought FtF applied to any part of the invention. So you patent a specific part of the invention, then you've filed that invention. I could be wrong. IANAL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_inv...
- beached_whale 10y agoSorry yes, they signed it in 2011 but it went into effect in 2013
- pkaye 10y agoIf the unpatented part is put into production by the original inventor, can they still patent it many years later?
- 10y ago
- Taek 10y agoIt really depends on the industry I think. Some industries like machine learning move fast enough that a 20 year patent can kill a whole field. Even 2 years is forever in machine learning. But I also think some fields move slow enough and need enough R&D that much longer timescales make sense. Things like wind tech, nuclear tech, fusion tech. I'm really not an expert on any of this, but a I don't think a one size fits all scheme is sufficient.
- deepnotderp 10y agoYeah, a patent would destroy machine learning. 2 years? Try 2 weeks on arXiv... :D But on the other hand, I'm of the opinion that patents should stay, but trivial ones should stop being granted. And perhaps progressively increase the length based on triviality? Something super novel should get a longer lifespan, but something simple(r) should only get 5 years or so.
- dzdt 10y agoCompared to copyrights, patent expiration is much more reasonable!
- hollerith 10y agoTrue, but if you are writing software, it is vastly easier to avoid violating copyrights than it is to avoid violating patents.
- yjftsjthsd-h 10y agoI sincerely hope we aren't using "more reasonable than current copyright law" as a measure of anything.
- giarc 10y agoWhat if a technology takes 3 years to develop? Should the company only have 3 years of protection?
- nitemice 10y agoI'm not sure if this is what you meant, but that's an interesting idea: Patents that last for as long as you can prove you spent developing the technology behind them. If the discoveries and investigation behind a patent took you 20 years, then you get a 20 year patent. If they only took you five minutes because you're advancement is relatively trivial (and yet somehow still qualifies for a patent) then you get a minimum of a year or something. I'm sure that such a system would be just as game-able, but I feel like it would kill at least some of the most pollutant patents.
- giarc 10y agoNot really what I meant. I was more implying that companies should have a right to protect what they spent time and money developing. No one invest in R&D if they would only get a small amount of protection. I think 3 years is likely too short. But I don't know what the right amount is either.
- dave_sullivan 10y agoHonestly, I don't think there is a good argument for patents at this point. If your thing is truly groundbreaking, keep it secret. The reward for having great ideas and successfully productizing them is lots of money; why do there need to be patents (and effective monopoly protections) on top of that? There's a decent argument for drug patents (drugs cost a fortune to develop; makers only recoup losses if they can mark up the cost of drugs massively; competition gets in the way of that), but I'd argue this is a better argument against the whole industry and an argument for more public funding of drug research. If you can't make your business work without patents, I think that's a bad sign. I don't think it's feasible to get rid of patents, but I think they could (and should) be made easier to challenge and invalidate, and there should be some restrictions to discourage patent trolls (what restrictions exactly is debatable).
- srtjstjsj 10y ago> why do there need to be patents (and effective monopoly protections) on top of that? It's explained here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." It's to avoid free-riders copying an invention after someone else researches the related dead ends.
- dave_sullivan 10y agoI understand the argument, I just don't think it "promotes the Progress of Science and useful Arts". If you were to remove patent protections, the progress of science and useful art would not suddenly take a nose dive. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that patents stifle progress in art and science. Also there's a big distinction between copyright and patents. You don't hear about copyright trolls as often; it's not as crippled of a system.
- tomcam 10y agoIt's a compromise. The framers of the Constitution had battles about that. Some of them thought patents were bad, some thought they promoted innovation.
- Cyph0n 10y agoThere are a lot of things that you and I take for granted that simply wouldn't exist without the patent system. I think many people underestimate the amount of R&D effort that goes into coming up with a novel idea and its implementation. If there was no system in place to protect IP, commercially-funded research would basically die, and the average Joe would end up being the biggest loser. However, I am completely against silly patents like the infamous attempt by BT to patent the hyperlink[1]. [1]: http://www.zdnet.com/article/bt-loses-hyperlink-patent-case/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/bt-loses-hyperlink-patent-case/
- maxerickson 10y agoHow much are AC-3 license fees? Like, should I be outraged at the fee built into TVs, or is it basically irrelevant?
- derf_ 10y agoAccording to https://ec.europa.eu/assets/jrc/events/20110428-tto-circle/jrc_20110428_ttocirle_brufani.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/assets/jrc/events/20110428-tto-circle/j... both Philips and Dolby collected royalties on AC-3 in DVD players totaling $1.05 for one capable of 5.1 output. By comparison, the high-volume per-unit fee for H.264 is $0.10, and because of the annual cap on H.264 fees, the effective per-unit fee for large companies is actually much smaller. So AC-3 costs over an order of magnitude more than a video codec (HEVC is, of course, aiming to fix this), and does not, to my knowledge, have an annual cap. You can view a sample license agreement, which does not mention such a cap, here: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1114084/000101287003003164/dex106.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1114084/000101287003... Annual caps are essential for anyone whose business model involves giving away software for free on the internet (even an existing user downloading a new version triggers another royalty). You may also notice that that agreement charges royalties for products made or distributed in "Non-Patent Countries", including those that purport not to have software patents. This is pretty standard. Essentially, if you'd like to sell your product in the US, you have to pay royalties on all units you sell, anywhere in the world.
- briandear 10y agoI wish we'd have the same outrage over the various taxes that constitute a product's cost as we do the license fees. Gasoline taxes for instance are higher than the profit made from selling gasoline.
- ZeroGravitas 10y agoI'm outraged that gasoline taxes aren't higher, if that counts, since it's use literally poisons children and leads to hundreds of thousands of deaths every year amongst other externalities it imposes on people.
- draw_down 10y agoIf you think 20 years is bad, wait till you see what Disney is pulling off.
- StClaire 10y agoI had a neighbor who worked for the patent office. He worked on LCD screens for Samsung and some other manufacturers. He told me the patent office needs 2-3 years to grant the patent but the lifespan of the product is around 18 months. So, he told me, by the time the patent is granted the product is already off the shelves. He got offended when I said the patent system was messed up
- Razengan 10y agoDid you bring up Samsung's past implication in infringing upon the patents of other companies?
- lostlogin 10y agoComments suggesting Samsung disregards intellectual property are often down voted, and up votes go to comments on the triviality of designing of the rounded rect. What's going on here?
- JustSomeNobody 10y agoIt would be interesting to see the actual data on this.
- coldpie 10y agoDefinitely not a reflection of a large group of people with different opinions of different strengths. It's actually a big HN conspiracy designed specifically to piss you off. You figured us out.
- josaka 10y agoThis is still true under the default filing workflow. But the USPTO has mitigated problem with a new program that lets you pay a few thousand dollars and have your case examined w/in a year. Allowances within six months are not impossible. But it's expensive.
- beefield 10y agoI have thought that there could be an IP tax that increases over time, and once you do not pay the tax, the IP in question becomes public domain automatically. The increase rate could be different for different IP, but typically first few years could be free, and after 20 years the tax should be in billions. This would solve quite a few problems with IP (orphan works would be a non-issue, and patent trolls would have difficulties operating) Of course, I think there would be some "small" details to be solved on the international side...
- Someone 10y ago"The increase rate could be different for different IP" I would expect that to end up as just one other thing patent lawyers will use to dispute patents, as that would have the patent office (partially) decide not only whether something is original, but also, to some extent, what it is worth.
- beefield 10y agoI meant not in individual patent level, but higher level. Copyright for books might need a separate tax schedule from patents in medicine, which again might have different requirements than software patents. Or, one schedule might fit everything, I have not done that detailed anaylis of this idea.
- briandear 10y agoI am confused. If I invent something; I pay the government a tax or I lose what I invent? "Hey this is a really nice restaurant; it'd be a shame if you were to have a fire or something."
- std_throwaway 10y agoFor groundbreaking technology, 20 years is shorter than you think. It could take 5 years at university to get it working at all, 5 years as a startup to get the first product to market, 5 years to scale up the marked from zero. Then you only have 5 years left where you actually have a chance to make money. Shortening the patent life to even 10 years would make it unattractive to patent groundbreaking technology. If you immediately make it to market, the story is different. In the software-sector everything is moving much much faster than in the physical world. The negative effects of patents become much more obvious then. One way to go about that is to limit the license fees the patent holder can get. This would change the game in major ways (mostly for the better I think).
- BlackFly 10y agoCould is the most important word in your entire store, it could take that much time. But the story at hand really underlines that 20 years is longer than necessary. Furthermore, the alternative (AAC) is open source. So there obviously exist incentives that are not patents. So 0 years of protectionism was enough for some people to innovate. It is very common for people to act like patents are somehow necessary for innovation, but this is a story where patents were harmful.
- Angostura 10y ago> But the story at hand really underlines that 20 years is longer than necessary. And the scenario outline underlines that it may not be.
- admax88q 10y agoBut one is a real story, the other is a hypothetical...
- dahart 10y ago'Could' applies to patents being too long too. 20 years could be longer than necessary. All scenarios in this argument have already happened in large numbers, companies have both failed and succeeded to realize financial protection and gain from their patents, in both too long and too short timeframes. Shortening patent life will hurt big businesses somewhat. It might completely kill the use of patents for small startups and research groups, and completely eliminate whatever protections they have left, if any. Patent protections already heavily favor big businesses. Big businesses will be fine either way. Shortening patents will have little effect on whether they survive. What I wonder is what we can do to make the patent system useful to small businesses, like it is so often claimed to be, or what alternatives there are to incentivize and protect small business innovation.
- JustSomeNobody 10y ago20 years ago things weren't moving quite as fast. But I do agree with the sentiment.
- magila 10y agoIs there a similar status page somewhere for DTS/DCA? I think that's the last of the first generation multichannel audio codecs which is still both widely used and patent encumbered.
- suethemessenger 10y agoThe remaining patents on DTS Core expired last year. http://dts.com/patents/bd-dvd-players http://dts.com/patents/bd-dvd-players lists 4 patents, all expired. (DTS-HD is still patent-encumbered, but DTS-HD content is backward-compatible with DTS Core.)
- johnhattan 10y agoWhat's the practical upshot of this? Are there some apps that are waiting for this bit to expire so they can finally make things work the way they should? For example, Audacity for Windows doesn't install with MP3 support. You have to download a plugin from Germany before Audacity will read/write MP3. Which I presume is because patents.
- TD-Linux 10y agoVLC: https://forum.videolan.org/viewtopic.php?t=125032 https://forum.videolan.org/viewtopic.php?t=125032
- loeg 10y ago> For example, Audacity for Windows doesn't install with MP3 support. You have to download a plugin from Germany before Audacity will read/write MP3. Which I presume is because patents. Presumably, yes. Although, coincidentally enough, mp3's patent expired recently as well. So you may not have to anymore.
- cJ0th 10y ago> Although, coincidentally enough, mp3's patent expired recently as well. So you may not have to anymore. Are you sure? According to wikipedia it ends at the end of 2017 (in the US) [0] Also, http://www.mp3licensing.com/ http://www.mp3licensing.com/ is still up and running. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#Licensing.2C_ownership_and_legislation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#Licensing.2C_ownership_and...
- loeg 10y agoI guess decoding expired a while ago: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/34NPNTJITRHRP2FRKKYGL2YMEUU4BDYF/ https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fe... Encoding is still encumbered for a little while.
- hmottestad 10y agoApple blocks apps on iOS that have AC-3 support without a license. Even VLC got bit by this and thrown out of the App Store.
- Animats 10y agoThe MPEG-2 patents also ran out recently. Even MPEG-4, as used online, may be out of patent. The newer patents in the MPEG-LA portfolio for MPEG-4 are mostly for things nobody uses online, such as interlace and 5-channel audio. It's about time for someone to take a hard look at the remaining MPEG-LA patents.
- MBCook 10y agoAre H.264 and MPEG 4 the same thing? I can never remember the relationship. Does this mean that the WebM fight is closer to being moot?
- wmf 10y agoNo, H.264 is a newer codec. Now the fight is H.265 vs AV1.
- stonemetal 10y agoH.264 is MPEG-4 Part 10. If I am not mistaken H.264 is only the video compression part, while MPEG-4 is full audio, video, and container.
- MBCook 10y agoI thought that might be correct. So I guess H.264 is still under patent?
- stonemetal 10y agoIf OS News is correct it will be patent free on 29 nov 2027. http://www.osnews.com/story/24954/US_Patent_Expiration_for_MP3_MPEG-2_H_264/ http://www.osnews.com/story/24954/US_Patent_Expiration_for_M...
- spatulon 10y agoH.264 is a subset of MPEG-4. It's another name for MPEG-4 Part 10 (Advanced Video Coding). MPEG-4 itself includes many other parts, including a container format, audio (AAC), and another video codec (Part 2, popularly known as DivX).
- shmerl 10y agoWhy would they still use old codec when there are modern and free ones like Opus?
- jackvalentine 10y agoFrom the site: Developers When would I need to decode AC-3? Playing most live TV content Playing most recorded TV content Playing many videos from DVD Playing many videos from Blu-Ray Playing videos recorded by some digital camcorders Playing some online streaming content offered in 5.1 surround sound When would I need to encode AC-3? Hopefully never! In practice, there are a few cases: Encoding surround sound audio for some legacy TVs and devices that only support AC-3 for surround. Modern devices can decode other multichannel formats such as AAC, DTS, and Opus. Encoding surround sound audio to be sent to a legacy AV receiver using an optical cable (S/PDIF). Modern AV receivers can accept other formats over HDMI, including multichannel PCM. Is AC-3 any good? Should I use it for new stuff? No, of course not. AC-3 is over 25 years old and horribly inefficient.
- Veratyr 10y agoAC-3 is a part of many current standards (i.e. is a hard requirement) and has wide hardware support. Opus lacks both hardware and software support on many platforms (notably iOS) and ultimately, doesn't perform that much better than existing, supported codecs like AAC, which already have to be licensed for other reasons. I love Opus and it's used by some big players like YouTube but ultimately I don't see it taking the place of MP3/AAC for music or AC-3/DTS for premium video anytime soon.
- shmerl 10y agoAAC is patent encumbered, so it's not a suitable option for replacing standards. That's what I'm talking about. Standards aren't supposed to be forever stuck with old tech. I see no reason why Opus couldn't be part of more standards (it's already part of WebRTC), besides of course Apple which can't stand free codecs.
- LeoPanthera 10y agoThis makes Laserdisc a completely open format!
- TD-Linux 10y agoAnd DRM-free! I'm watching one tonight in celebration. Sadly, there's practically no documentation online about the Laserdisc physical format.
- emptybits 10y ago> "You have probably paid many AC-3 license fees over the years. AC-3 license fees are part of the cost of TVs, game consoles, and other AV equipment sold in the last 25 years." I'm curious ... what's the ballpark end-user license cost the public has been paying for the ability to decode AC-3 on their TVs and receivers and consoles and other devices?
- H4CK3RM4N 10y agoThis forum post is the closest I can find, although it only relates to the producer's costs. It looks like it ranges from next to nothing for small-budget releases to 10k for cinema releases. http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?39633-Licensing-Cost-for-Dolby-5-1-80k http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?39633-Licensing-... The replies to that post include a link to an application page, which also includes options for products which decode the audio. Maybe someone could troll the page, assuming it's automated. https://www.dolby.com/us/en/professional/licensing.html https://www.dolby.com/us/en/professional/licensing.html
- jsnell 10y agoI happened to open this link with about 5 minutes left on the countdown, so I totally watched it tick down all the way to 0. Unfortunately no fireworks at the end, just the clock starting to show the time the patents had now been expired :)
- cooper12 10y agoYep, all it does is update the countdown message: http://web.archive.org/web/20170319195114/https://ac3freedomday.org/index.js http://web.archive.org/web/20170319195114/https://ac3freedom... and it uses jquery-countdown. Sounds to me like we need jquery-fireworks: https://codepen.io/P3R0/pen/yyqdxR https://codepen.io/P3R0/pen/yyqdxR.
- ksec 10y agoThis makes, possibly, one of the most Widely used and Hardware compatible codec patent free. ( All MP3's patent will expire in Dec 2017 ) And AC-3 offer lossless mode, which means you now have a Free, Lossloess codec that can be played on a very wide range of media player. My previous experience ( that was properly more then 10 years ago already )was that AC-3 sounded a lot better then Mp3 at high bitrate / 256Kbps. Not sure how it fares with AAC.
- TD-Linux 10y agoAC-3 does not offer lossless mode, only the extension TrueHD, which is still covered by patents. As mentioned in the article, AC-3 is pretty horrific by modern standards. Use Opus or FLAC instead.
- CalChris 10y agoWhen Japan opened up to the West, Korekiyo Takahashi visited the US in 1886. "We said, 'What is it that makes the United States such a great nation?' And we investigated and we found that it was patents, and we will have patents." http://www.iphalloffame.com/korekiyo_takahashi/ http://www.iphalloffame.com/korekiyo_takahashi/ You need to reward innovators or you won't have innovation.
- philovivero 10y agoThe patent system no longer rewards innovation. At best, it's a non-participant and at worst it quashes innovation. I'm not trying to agree or disagree with anything else you wrote, just clarifying what I think is a point you left ambiguous.
- CalChris 10y agoIf I was ambiguous, it was unintentional. I'm very pro-patent and moreover, I'm always surprised with opposition to them at the engineer level. I haven't met any entrepreneurs who were anti-patent. I rather disagree that patents don't reward innovation; that is exactly what they do. As Lincoln said, The patent system added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius. Lincoln was among many many things, a patent attorney.
- spatz 10y agoAny quotes newer than 19th century?
- CalChris 10y agoDamn. And I was gonna quote Twain: for I knew that a country without a patent office and good patent laws was just a crab, and couldn't travel any way but sideways or backways
- vocatus_gate 10y ago> Any quotes newer than 19th century? What you're doing is called Chronological Snobbery, acting as if an idea or concept has no value simply because of age.
- coin 10y agoWe in North America have been paying the Dolby AC-3 tax for the last 20 years. Dolby successfully weaseled AC-3 as the multi-channel audio encoding standard for MPEG-2 DVDs. This is despite the fact that MPEG-2 already has a multi-channel audio encoding (AAC). DVDs in Europe utilize AAC audio. Thus every DVD and DVD player sold in N. America has to license AC-3 from Dolby. The best way to steal from people is to do it without their knowledge.
- yuhong 10y agoI think AC-3 patents expires sooner than AAC, right?
- kaslai 10y agoIt's also worth noting though that there is no need for an AAC license to transmit AAC data. You are only required to purchase a license to use or distribute codecs, which is a one time fee of about a dollar per codec (AKA per device which can play AAC). I haven't looked into AC-3, but a lot of audio formats would require a per-item costs or related distribution costs for the data as well. That's one of the reasons why MP3 is annoying to deal with commercially, as it has a cost of 2% of revenue for music broadcast/distribution, or a $2,500 cost to bundle MP3s with a single video game title.
- TD-Linux 10y agoDVDs in Europe are required to have a non-AC3 audio stream, but not AAC - MPEG-1 layer 2 is one of the options. AAC, while not controlled by a single company, still has its problems. AAC has had tons of stuff hacked on to it over time (I count 14 profiles), but only one license is offered. So you end up paying for things you don't use, and it's also quite expensive (4x the cost of H.264 video).
- niftich 10y agoYou're thinking of MPEG-2 Part 3 (also known as MPEG-2 BC) in Layer 2, a backwards-compatible extension to MPEG-1 Part 3 that allows multichannel audio. MPEG itself has a FAQ entry on "When should I use AAC rather than MPEG-2 BC?" [1]; of course the point is moot in context of DVDs. This Apple documentation article [2] lists the supported codecs and lists the relevant one as "MPEG-1 Layer 2 Audio"... close enough. It talks about how AC-3 enjoys broad support worldwide, but MPEG-1 Layer 2 is only mandatory in PAL regions. It includes language to suggest that AC-3 may not play on very old players in PAL regions, implying that at some point AC-3 wasn't mandatory in PAL regions -- this is corroborated by empirical observations elsewhere, like this forum thread from 2004 [3]. The book 'Spatial Audio' [4] by Francis Rumsey mentions that MPEG-2 BC was supposed to be multichannel audio in PAL regions, but this push was later abandoned. Dolby has lobbied extensively in favor of its own formats. This news article from MIT in 2002 recounts [5] an interesting situation where money exchanged hands between Dolby and MIT after MIT's vote to support Dolby AC-3 in a TV broadcasters consortium's recommendations to the FCC. [1] http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/content/when-should-i-use-aac-rather-mpeg-2-bc http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/content/when-should-i-use-aac-r... [2] https://documentation.apple.com/en/dvdstudiopro/usermanual/index.html#chapter=5%26section=3%26tasks=true https://documentation.apple.com/en/dvdstudiopro/usermanual/i... [3] https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/164582-MPEG-Audio-Vs-LPCM-Vs-Dolby-Digital-(AC-3)-What-is-b https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/164582-MPEG-Audio-Vs-LPC... [4] https://books.google.com/books?id=b3kqBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA108&lpg=PA108&dq=mpeg-2+bc+dvd https://books.google.com/books?id=b3kqBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA108&lpg=... [5] http://tech.mit.edu/V122/N54/54hdtv.54n.html http://tech.mit.edu/V122/N54/54hdtv.54n.html
- hoschicz 10y agoDoes that mean that VLC on iOS will be able to play AC-3? Now, one can't play a movie on an iOS. device, you have to transcode it first.
- jlebrech 10y agodoes audio still have that much innovation, isn't it now a good idea for dolby to look elsewhere for patents?
- tehabe 10y agoI think the last MP3 patent will expire by the end of the year, I always thought AC-3 is younger than MP3 but well. (Almost the same age) MP3 is also an example of prolonged patent validity, it was approved in 1991, published in 1993 but the last patent expires in 2017.
- kozak 10y agoI have an AVCHD camcorder that is excellent in all respects, except for the fact that it uses AC-3 at something like 256 kbps for its stereo sound: compression artifacts are quite noticeable.