4 ms·

That's what AV1 is.

by MikusR 6y ago

That's what AV1 is.

selectodude 6y ago
https://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=139636 https://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?Art... Care to try your luck?
- clouddrover 6y ago
  I think that's more a case of Sisvel trying their luck. I don't think they'll be successful. The Alliance for Open Media was careful to avoid potential patent problems during AV1 development. So, unless AOMedia seriously failed in that effort, AV1 will be alright.
  - p_l 6y ago
    Being careful and being successful are two different things, especially given how hard it is to do an exhaustive search over patents to ensure that no, no claim in any patent filing touches your code, especially given that there are regimes where patent filings for software get pretty much a rubber stamp and are based around "first to file" even if there's prior art.
- ihuman 6y ago
  I'm confused. How is Sisvel able to sell a license for AV1 patents when they're not a member of AOMedia? Do they actually have AV1 patents, or are they trying to trick companies that would rather pay up than risk violating patents?
  - inthewings 6y ago
    That's what patent trolling is
  - vertex-four 6y ago
    Basically, unlike copyright, you don't even have to know that someone else patented something in order to infringe on a patent and have them come out of the woodwork later. It's just even more expensive if you do know. The patent system was not designed to have every tiny little technique patented, and this is its failure mode.
    - anticensor 6y ago
      > It's just even more expensive if you do know. In the USA. Wilful and unwilful infringement of the patent costs the same in Europe.
      - vertex-four 6y ago
        Luckily, software patents are unenforceable in the EU, so for many of us on this site that's irrelevant.
p_l 6y ago
The situation with AV1 is "we are in middle of minefield and nobody got mine-clearing gear". They can be reasonably sure they do not infringe known patents from certain Patent Pools and patents declared as part of MPEG-LA bundles. They can't provide reasonable data that they do not infringe on any submarine patent, something that killed 3 attempts by MPEG-LA to provide a royalty-free codec for the web - all that was required to kill it was a note from a company that they "might" have patents covering things they tried to release, or that they decided not to allow royalty-free license for their known patent. Meanwhile patent search is complex enough that it's unreasonable to impossible to make a statement that you definitely don't infringe any unless you keep clear of anything invented within last ~20 years.
- clouddrover 6y ago
  > The situation with AV1 is "we are in middle of minefield and nobody got mine-clearing gear". That's true of every new video codec. It didn't stop the use of H.264 or VP9 or even HEVC. Multiple companies have now rolled out AV1 into production. We'll see what happens.
  - p_l 6y ago
    When I wrote that I didn't know about retaliation clauses in AV1 patent pool license. That said, a huge chunk of patents involved in all MPEG standards (AVC, HEVC, etc.) meant that if you tried to go after them, you might have lost licenses necessary elsewhere, so it's all a question of risk analysis for someone who wants to torpedo AV1 with a patent. What's wrong is claiming that AV1, VP9, VP8 are "patent-free". They are not.

That's what AV1 is.

by MikusR 6y ago

That's what AV1 is.

https://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=139636 https://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?Art... Care to try your luck?

clouddrover 6y ago
I think that's more a case of Sisvel trying their luck. I don't think they'll be successful. The Alliance for Open Media was careful to avoid potential patent problems during AV1 development. So, unless AOMedia seriously failed in that effort, AV1 will be alright.
- p_l 6y ago
  Being careful and being successful are two different things, especially given how hard it is to do an exhaustive search over patents to ensure that no, no claim in any patent filing touches your code, especially given that there are regimes where patent filings for software get pretty much a rubber stamp and are based around "first to file" even if there's prior art.
ihuman 6y ago
I'm confused. How is Sisvel able to sell a license for AV1 patents when they're not a member of AOMedia? Do they actually have AV1 patents, or are they trying to trick companies that would rather pay up than risk violating patents?
- inthewings 6y ago
  That's what patent trolling is
- vertex-four 6y ago
  Basically, unlike copyright, you don't even have to know that someone else patented something in order to infringe on a patent and have them come out of the woodwork later. It's just even more expensive if you do know. The patent system was not designed to have every tiny little technique patented, and this is its failure mode.
  - anticensor 6y ago
    > It's just even more expensive if you do know. In the USA. Wilful and unwilful infringement of the patent costs the same in Europe.
    - vertex-four 6y ago
      Luckily, software patents are unenforceable in the EU, so for many of us on this site that's irrelevant.

p_l 6y ago

The situation with AV1 is "we are in middle of minefield and nobody got mine-clearing gear". They can be reasonably sure they do not infringe known patents from certain Patent Pools and patents declared as part of MPEG-LA bundles. They can't provide reasonable data that they do not infringe on any submarine patent, something that killed 3 attempts by MPEG-LA to provide a royalty-free codec for the web - all that was required to kill it was a note from a company that they "might" have patents covering things they tried to release, or that they decided not to allow royalty-free license for their known patent. Meanwhile patent search is complex enough that it's unreasonable to impossible to make a statement that you definitely don't infringe any unless you keep clear of anything invented within last ~20 years.

clouddrover 6y ago
> The situation with AV1 is "we are in middle of minefield and nobody got mine-clearing gear". That's true of every new video codec. It didn't stop the use of H.264 or VP9 or even HEVC. Multiple companies have now rolled out AV1 into production. We'll see what happens.
- p_l 6y ago
  When I wrote that I didn't know about retaliation clauses in AV1 patent pool license. That said, a huge chunk of patents involved in all MPEG standards (AVC, HEVC, etc.) meant that if you tried to go after them, you might have lost licenses necessary elsewhere, so it's all a question of risk analysis for someone who wants to torpedo AV1 with a patent. What's wrong is claiming that AV1, VP9, VP8 are "patent-free". They are not.