6 ms·

I understand AV1 has attempted to avoid existing patents. Is there a consensus that they succeeded? Or might the HEVC patent pool come after them still with l

by dzdt 8y ago

I understand AV1 has attempted to avoid existing patents. Is there a consensus that they succeeded? Or might the HEVC patent pool come after them still with lawsuits?

hannob 8y ago
Patent law is complicated and noone can give a final guarantee that AV1 will be fine. However given AV1 has some large companies like Google, Facebook and Microsoft behind it and they probably have an interest in making this a success they probably asked for their legal teams opinion. I'd say chances are high that it's gonna be fine.
- class4behavior 8y ago
  Those three would not be enough for the kind of push we see here, but a lengthy list of major players in tech makes a difference: Amazon, AMD, Apple, ARM, Broadcom, Cisco, Facebook, Google, Hulu, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Mozilla, Netflix, Nvidia [1] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_for_Open_Media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_for_Open_Media
  - twotwotwo 8y ago
    The cluster of non-AOMedia cos. I'm most curious about is mobile/SoC folks: Samsung, Qualcomm, Huawei, MediaTek. Not sure what it signals--the optimistic version is they just want to keep their options open at this stage, and figure they can integrate ARM's or Google's design when the time comes. Pessimistic version is that at least one of them would like to impede adoption by using patents + not supporting AV1 on their chips or devices, maybe in hopes of squeezing money out of the rest of the world. If Apple (a member, as you noted) ships hardware AV1 support and Google and content providers keep backing it, seems like that would put pressure on the holdouts: your flagships may have to go without a feature a competitor has until you get on board. No idea--I don't know much about these cos' strategy/politics at all. Just speculating like most others here.
    - londons_explore 8y ago
      Simple AV1 accelerators are small enough that they might put them in the silicon of shipping devices to hedge their bets, giving themselves the ability to enable AV1 or HEVC perhaps as little as a few weeks before a device is released. There are also substantial overlaps in hardware video decode accelerators, and they could well both share silicon.
microcolonel 8y ago
The largest owners of video coding IP have agreed publicly not to litigate on the enormous body of existing patents that apply to AV1.
twotwotwo 8y ago
It's pretty hard to definitively succeed. The threat is not just the HEVC companies that aren't in AOMedia; unknown unknowns are a factor too. Like submarine patents: patent applicants can intentionally delay the issuance/publication (keep amending their application for example), and because the initial filing date is all that matters, they still get to use that patent to go after others. And the whole situation is complicated enough that I wouldn't be shocked if there are published patents where legal review decided it wasn't a threat (that it doesn't apply to AV1) but someone sues anyway, or review simply didn't consider the key patent/claim at all. Some things AV1 has going for it: - Some techniques are already in use out there (like in VP9), are patented by AOMedia members, or are essentially just bumping some numbers to take advantage of stronger hardware (prediction directions, reference frames you can use). So those parts seem less likely to see patent claims, either because they may not be patentable or because we'd've seen it in someone suing over VP9 or such. - There is a legal defense fund. And, more informally, there are large companies to which it's worth a lot to keep the codec as unencumbered as possible. - AOMedia members are allowed to use their patents against entities filing patent suits, which might discourage cos. that actually have products (as opposed to pure patent holding companies) from suing, or strengthen the AOMedia member's position in negotiating for a settlement etc. (I wonder whether this part is structured to also allow retaliation when a company e.g. sells their patents to hostile pools or holding companies.) I'm sure there will be threats and suits (the system just seems to make it inevitable someone will try to profit off this) and it might be someone in one of the HEVC pools doing it in hopes they can help HEVC win. But seems possible AOMedia could win or settle any essential ones (things core to the codec rather than just specific implementation techniques). If the whole thing failed catastrophically--a lawsuit covering all approaches to implementing some essential codec feature succeeded--AV1 would still likely end up much less expensive and encumbered than HEVC, which of course didn't even try to avoid patents. I also wonder if AOMedia might get to work on a workaround (like, define a codec or profile that's more or less AV1 with the specific feature from the lawsuit disabled, removed or replaced). That could obviously be hugely expensive depending on things like compatibility with existing HW/SW, but could still work out cheaper than royalties or whatever.
bcheung 8y ago
"Under patent rules adopted from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), technology contributors license their AV1-connected patents to anyone, anywhere, anytime based on reciprocity, i.e. as long as the user does not engage in patent litigation." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV1#cite_note-patent_license-23 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV1#cite_note-patent_license-2... We can't know for certain, but with the number of big players joining the alliance, I find it unlikely that a company would want to give up their rights to use AV1. Not to mention the PR nightmare, boycotting, and developer exodus that would ensue for that company.
- taneq 8y ago
  Wait, is that "as long as the user does not engage in patent litigation" against that consortium member? Or at all? I can't imagine a big corp. forfeiting the right to all patent actions.
- MaxBarraclough 8y ago
  > PR nightmare, boycotting, and developer exodus that would ensue Perhaps, but I have less and less faith in these 'corrective forces'. Tech companies often seem to discount such consequences, and they get away with it just fine. More optimistically though, I can't recall any instances of a major tech company reneging on a promise like this. The 'Microsoft Community Promise' has been honoured, for instance. (I accept it's quite possible I'm just being forgetful, mind.)

by dzdt 8y ago

I understand AV1 has attempted to avoid existing patents. Is there a consensus that they succeeded? Or might the HEVC patent pool come after them still with lawsuits?

hannob 8y ago

Patent law is complicated and noone can give a final guarantee that AV1 will be fine. However given AV1 has some large companies like Google, Facebook and Microsoft behind it and they probably have an interest in making this a success they probably asked for their legal teams opinion. I'd say chances are high that it's gonna be fine.

class4behavior 8y ago
Those three would not be enough for the kind of push we see here, but a lengthy list of major players in tech makes a difference: Amazon, AMD, Apple, ARM, Broadcom, Cisco, Facebook, Google, Hulu, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Mozilla, Netflix, Nvidia [1] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_for_Open_Media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_for_Open_Media
- twotwotwo 8y ago
  The cluster of non-AOMedia cos. I'm most curious about is mobile/SoC folks: Samsung, Qualcomm, Huawei, MediaTek. Not sure what it signals--the optimistic version is they just want to keep their options open at this stage, and figure they can integrate ARM's or Google's design when the time comes. Pessimistic version is that at least one of them would like to impede adoption by using patents + not supporting AV1 on their chips or devices, maybe in hopes of squeezing money out of the rest of the world. If Apple (a member, as you noted) ships hardware AV1 support and Google and content providers keep backing it, seems like that would put pressure on the holdouts: your flagships may have to go without a feature a competitor has until you get on board. No idea--I don't know much about these cos' strategy/politics at all. Just speculating like most others here.
  - londons_explore 8y ago
    Simple AV1 accelerators are small enough that they might put them in the silicon of shipping devices to hedge their bets, giving themselves the ability to enable AV1 or HEVC perhaps as little as a few weeks before a device is released. There are also substantial overlaps in hardware video decode accelerators, and they could well both share silicon.

microcolonel 8y ago

The largest owners of video coding IP have agreed publicly not to litigate on the enormous body of existing patents that apply to AV1.

twotwotwo 8y ago

It's pretty hard to definitively succeed. The threat is not just the HEVC companies that aren't in AOMedia; unknown unknowns are a factor too. Like submarine patents: patent applicants can intentionally delay the issuance/publication (keep amending their application for example), and because the initial filing date is all that matters, they still get to use that patent to go after others. And the whole situation is complicated enough that I wouldn't be shocked if there are published patents where legal review decided it wasn't a threat (that it doesn't apply to AV1) but someone sues anyway, or review simply didn't consider the key patent/claim at all. Some things AV1 has going for it: - Some techniques are already in use out there (like in VP9), are patented by AOMedia members, or are essentially just bumping some numbers to take advantage of stronger hardware (prediction directions, reference frames you can use). So those parts seem less likely to see patent claims, either because they may not be patentable or because we'd've seen it in someone suing over VP9 or such. - There is a legal defense fund. And, more informally, there are large companies to which it's worth a lot to keep the codec as unencumbered as possible. - AOMedia members are allowed to use their patents against entities filing patent suits, which might discourage cos. that actually have products (as opposed to pure patent holding companies) from suing, or strengthen the AOMedia member's position in negotiating for a settlement etc. (I wonder whether this part is structured to also allow retaliation when a company e.g. sells their patents to hostile pools or holding companies.) I'm sure there will be threats and suits (the system just seems to make it inevitable someone will try to profit off this) and it might be someone in one of the HEVC pools doing it in hopes they can help HEVC win. But seems possible AOMedia could win or settle any essential ones (things core to the codec rather than just specific implementation techniques). If the whole thing failed catastrophically--a lawsuit covering all approaches to implementing some essential codec feature succeeded--AV1 would still likely end up much less expensive and encumbered than HEVC, which of course didn't even try to avoid patents. I also wonder if AOMedia might get to work on a workaround (like, define a codec or profile that's more or less AV1 with the specific feature from the lawsuit disabled, removed or replaced). That could obviously be hugely expensive depending on things like compatibility with existing HW/SW, but could still work out cheaper than royalties or whatever.

bcheung 8y ago

"Under patent rules adopted from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), technology contributors license their AV1-connected patents to anyone, anywhere, anytime based on reciprocity, i.e. as long as the user does not engage in patent litigation." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV1#cite_note-patent_license-23 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV1#cite_note-patent_license-2... We can't know for certain, but with the number of big players joining the alliance, I find it unlikely that a company would want to give up their rights to use AV1. Not to mention the PR nightmare, boycotting, and developer exodus that would ensue for that company.

taneq 8y ago
Wait, is that "as long as the user does not engage in patent litigation" against that consortium member? Or at all? I can't imagine a big corp. forfeiting the right to all patent actions.
MaxBarraclough 8y ago
> PR nightmare, boycotting, and developer exodus that would ensue Perhaps, but I have less and less faith in these 'corrective forces'. Tech companies often seem to discount such consequences, and they get away with it just fine. More optimistically though, I can't recall any instances of a major tech company reneging on a promise like this. The 'Microsoft Community Promise' has been honoured, for instance. (I accept it's quite possible I'm just being forgetful, mind.)