4 ms·
HEVC Advance lists 681 US patents in their patent list. It is completely unlikely that AV1 infringes on none of them or any other patents. However, there's a
by quink 7y ago
HEVC Advance lists 681 US patents in their patent list.
It is completely unlikely that AV1 infringes on none of them or any other patents.
However, there's a big giant gap between a valid patent and actually expecting to get royalties without even revealing which patents are supposedly being infringed on even now that AV1 is standardised and in production usage.
So do I think that AV1 is patent-free when all is said and done from a legal standpoint? No. Do I think it'll be royalty-free anyway? Yes.
Also:
> 1.3. Defensive Termination. If any Licensee, its Affiliates, or its agents initiates patent litigation or files, maintains, or voluntarily participates in a lawsuit against another entity or any person asserting that any Implementation infringes Necessary Claims, any patent licenses granted under this License directly to the Licensee are immediately terminated as of the date of the initiation of action unless 1) that suit was in response to a corresponding suit regarding an Implementation first brought against an initiating entity, or 2) that suit was brought to enforce the terms of this License (including intervention in a third-party action by a Licensee).
vs.
* JVC Kenwood Corporation
* Koninklijke Philips N.V.
* Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation
* Orange S.A.
* Toshiba IPR Solutions, Inc.
If they are intending to initiate any patent litigation (which is going to be a very long time yet not least of all because they won't even reveal which patents) I think they're going to be at a losing end very very quickly having waited this long for VP9/AV1 to establish themselves.
- sjwright 7y agoIt occurs to me that the easiest way to flush out the risk is for AV1 to launch a defamation case against any patent licensing pool which claims to hold a relevant patent. If it’s a lie, that is straight up defamation. (Or a similar tort/breach. In Australia it would constitute a case of misleading or deceptive conduct under the ACL.)
- microcolonel 7y agoThis particular form of suit may be difficult in the U.S, owing to a somewhat different set of tradeoffs. It might be simple commercial fraud, if you could prove that they had misrepresented their certainty that their pool contained patents which they reasonably believed to be essential to implementing an AV1/VP9 encoder/decoder; though I think it may be very very hard to prove something like that.
- sjwright 7y agoIt's not about winning the case, it's about forcing the other side to show their hand.
- quink 7y agoAnd if it's not a lie, and they're going to find some judge in East Texas who'll see infer some infringement among one some detail in one of the bazillion patents in the pool, you're screwed. Patent cases of this sort seem to broadly favour the litigant so why stir the hornet's nest.
- sjwright 7y agoIt wouldn’t be a patent case, it would be a tort. Either you win and the problem goes away, or you lose and you know which patent you need to rewrite around. For the cost of some legal fees, a loss seems like a great value.