3 ms·
Someone should review what happened in Microsoft v Motorola here: if Nokia knowingly withheld information about patents they owned that will affect H.264 licens
by zinekeller 6y ago
Someone should review what happened in Microsoft v Motorola here: if Nokia knowingly withheld information about patents they owned that will affect H.264 licensing and Nokia is on the H.264 WG, then what will happen is that the patent is not invalidated but not enforced (effectively enforced royalty-free licensing) if a manufacturer wants to make a conforming H.264 decoder (as H.264, H.265, VP9 and AV1 is defined only for decoding and the main reason that encoders may vary in their quality and performance). For encoding, any patent that is not necessary to make a conforming H.264 stream (in other words, to enhance H.264 quality and performance) is negotiated outside of FRAND conditions (but in common H.264 practice is also available to licensing through MPEG LA). If the patents are solely used to enhance H.264 encoding quality or performance, then Lenovo doesn't have any chance here (as these falls out of scope in the WG contract Nokia signed with ITU/ISO), but if the patents pertains to the decoding side (like Microsoft v Motorola), then Nokia will not be able to enforce the patents, at least for the H.264 standard.
Edit: Personal opinion: this is H.265ing H.264 and I hate it.
Edit edit: Lenovo is trying to pass some contested patents that was properly declared by Nokia before ITU/ISO as not properly declared: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25398403 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25398403
Final edit: I gave up reviewing Nokia's declarations after finding matches in the filing. Apparently, the so-called contested patents (at least those that I have checked) were called differently when Nokia submitted the declaration (Lenovo's legal reviewed the patent numbers but did not looked if they matched the filing number). I have looked at some contested patents and it seems that Nokia did declare them properly as far back as 2002, so I genuinely don't know what Lenovo is trying to claim here. Accordingly, I let others complete the review here.