3 ms·
"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 ha
by 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.