4 ms·

Last I checked that patent pool didn't actually declare which patents they believe are needed for AV1. It's FUD.

by roca 5y ago

threeseed 5y ago
Sisvel who operates the patent pool is acting on behalf of companies like Philips, GE, NTT, Ericsson, Dolby and Toshiba. These are legitimate companies who have a long history of involvement in the codec space and so unless you have some evidence calling it FUD is pretty baseless. But again if AOM has full confidence that there are no patents issues then they should indemnify users so there is a guarantee it will be royalty-free.
- bawolff 5y ago
  Ah yes, because major companies have never been misleading with patents. > But again if AOM has full confidence that there are no patents issues then they should indemnify users so there is a guarantee it will be royalty-free. Name something you're sure about. Would you be willing to bet your entire life savings its true? Most people would say no, regardless of how sure they are.
  - oarsinsync 5y ago
    > Would you be willing to bet your entire life savings its true? Most people would say no A person's life savings is not comparable to the funds raised by an LLC. An LLC going bankrupt is not the same as a person going bankrupt.
- roca 5y ago
  "We have patents required to implement AV1." "Which patents?" "We're not telling. But they're real, take our word for it." Sounds like FUD to me. Sure, they have a long history of involvement in the codec space ... which makes them even more desperate to stop AV1 by any means, to stop their patent licensing revenue model from going away. Of course AOM isn't going to open themselves to unlimited liability in the case of some submarine patent. No-one ever does that. E.g. if you buy HEVC patent pool licenses you don't get any such indemnity. But the nice feature of AOM of course is the Defensive Termination clause in their patent license: https://aomedia.org/license/patent-license/ https://aomedia.org/license/patent-license/ If one of the companies you listed launches a first-strike lawsuit against any AV1 user, they lose their ability to use AV1. Until some company decides to put its neck on the block and launch such a lawsuit, or at least identify specific patents they think are necessary, their claims cannot be taken seriously.
  - exikyut 5y ago
    > "We have patents required to implement AV1." "Which patents?" "We're not telling. But they're real, take our word for it." Sounds like FUD to me. Wat. Yeah. I hear "patent pool", I go "okay, just for orientation let me see an itemized breakdown of the fee schedule." That's the logical continuation of that conversation. In my head, anyway. I'm just a curious observer who wants to understand how much licensors are paying in practice by understanding what they're paying for.
CharlesW 5y ago
> Last I checked that patent pool didn't actually declare which patents they believe are needed for AV1. It's FUD. Is it? Is this not the list? https://www.sisvel.com/images/documents/Video-Coding-Platform/PatentList_AV1.pdf https://www.sisvel.com/images/documents/Video-Coding-Platfor...
- roca 5y ago
  I stand corrected, my information was a couple of years out of date. Thanks.

Last I checked that patent pool didn't actually declare which patents they believe are needed for AV1. It's FUD.

by roca 5y ago

Last I checked that patent pool didn't actually declare which patents they believe are needed for AV1. It's FUD.

Sisvel who operates the patent pool is acting on behalf of companies like Philips, GE, NTT, Ericsson, Dolby and Toshiba. These are legitimate companies who have a long history of involvement in the codec space and so unless you have some evidence calling it FUD is pretty baseless. But again if AOM has full confidence that there are no patents issues then they should indemnify users so there is a guarantee it will be royalty-free.

bawolff 5y ago
Ah yes, because major companies have never been misleading with patents. > But again if AOM has full confidence that there are no patents issues then they should indemnify users so there is a guarantee it will be royalty-free. Name something you're sure about. Would you be willing to bet your entire life savings its true? Most people would say no, regardless of how sure they are.
- oarsinsync 5y ago
  > Would you be willing to bet your entire life savings its true? Most people would say no A person's life savings is not comparable to the funds raised by an LLC. An LLC going bankrupt is not the same as a person going bankrupt.
roca 5y ago
"We have patents required to implement AV1." "Which patents?" "We're not telling. But they're real, take our word for it." Sounds like FUD to me. Sure, they have a long history of involvement in the codec space ... which makes them even more desperate to stop AV1 by any means, to stop their patent licensing revenue model from going away. Of course AOM isn't going to open themselves to unlimited liability in the case of some submarine patent. No-one ever does that. E.g. if you buy HEVC patent pool licenses you don't get any such indemnity. But the nice feature of AOM of course is the Defensive Termination clause in their patent license: https://aomedia.org/license/patent-license/ https://aomedia.org/license/patent-license/ If one of the companies you listed launches a first-strike lawsuit against any AV1 user, they lose their ability to use AV1. Until some company decides to put its neck on the block and launch such a lawsuit, or at least identify specific patents they think are necessary, their claims cannot be taken seriously.
- exikyut 5y ago
  > "We have patents required to implement AV1." "Which patents?" "We're not telling. But they're real, take our word for it." Sounds like FUD to me. Wat. Yeah. I hear "patent pool", I go "okay, just for orientation let me see an itemized breakdown of the fee schedule." That's the logical continuation of that conversation. In my head, anyway. I'm just a curious observer who wants to understand how much licensors are paying in practice by understanding what they're paying for.

CharlesW 5y ago

> Last I checked that patent pool didn't actually declare which patents they believe are needed for AV1. It's FUD. Is it? Is this not the list? https://www.sisvel.com/images/documents/Video-Coding-Platform/PatentList_AV1.pdf https://www.sisvel.com/images/documents/Video-Coding-Platfor...

roca 5y ago
I stand corrected, my information was a couple of years out of date. Thanks.