10 ms·
Apple, Google, Facebook's AV1 standards group under EU antitrust investigation
- sylware 4y agoBTW, in EU toxic patent system, software patents are illegal...
- wmf 4y agoYet again the EU gets tricked into an anti-consumer position. I wonder if Fraunhofer is whispering in someone's ear.
- hgazx 4y ago“Gets tricked”. It’s incredible the things that some people come up with to excuse the EU.
- zx85wes 4y agoFor many people in the northern EU countries the EU is a religion.
- serial_dev 4y agoIt's not the first comment that mentions Fraunhofer. Can someone please explain to me what/who is that and why do many assume they are behind this?
- smat 4y agoFraunhofer is an institution in Germany positioned between universities and the industry. They provide applied research and license it to companies. For example mp3 was mainly developed there. They hold many patents in the field of audio and video coding which obviously fund parts of the organization. More recently, they established a new audio codec for Bluetooth LE under proprietary license which in my opinion does not have any advantages over OPUS. At the same time not all of the criticism is fair because they are not a patent troll and anticompetitive in their license agreements.
- formerly_proven 4y agoWhat does Fraunhaufer have to do with it? If we're randomly guessing which company might have instigated this investigation, I'd guess Sisvel, because it's easy to imagine for them to have an actual case: Sisvel has created an AV1 patent pool and iirc even made an open call for patent owners to approach them to get their patents added to the pool. It's easy to see how an anti-trust complaint could arise if someone left the pool or didn't join it because of real or imaginary pressure from AOMedia members.
- mort96 4y agoWhat makes you think this is them getting tricked, and not just them looking after the interests of EU companies? The EU's role isn't primarily as a consumer rights advocacy group after all.
- nightpool 4y agoIf the EU finds royalty-free patent ceasefire clauses to be anti-competitive, then the entire foundation of standards-based interoperability for the web is at stake. These schemes underlie everything—even something as simple as addEventListener('touchstart'). And the entire realm of software encoding schemes has been poisoned by patent royalty schemes for far too long. I cannot think of anything worse for the state of media encoding on the web than regulator intervention to maintain that status quo.
- dzhiurgis 4y ago(Speculating) What is the codec requires proprietary hardware only available from Apple, Google and the likes? Is it free or not really then?
- pornel 4y agoAV1 doesn't require any proprietary hardware, and it's free for hardware vendors to implement too. This is unlike H.265, which requires patent license fees for every chip made.
- kmeisthax 4y agoCorrection: H.264 requires patent license fees. H.265 requires three patent license fees, since two other competing patent pools promised a handful of patent owners a deal on cross-licensing if they left MPEG-LA. AV1 may not require a patent license, because Google designs the codec to only use unpatented or royalty-free patented inventions. However, there's still considerations of submarine patents - i.e. an unrelated entity that invented the same technology before Google. Parallel reinvention is not a defense against patent infringement - there is no inverse to prior art. This is the same reason why Microsoft refused to support VP8/WebM early on in IE - patent pools were supposed to provide an incentive against that sort of trickery. Then Velos Media and Access Advance came along and broke this, which is why the naysayers started piling on into AOM.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- DiabloD3 4y agoAV1 is open source and patent free, and the AOMedia group also has Mozilla and Xiph as founding members along with those three. If this antitrust investigation actually exists, the EU can properly get bent, and should stop shilling for the MPEG patent pool.
- calvinmorrison 4y agoeasy to make the case that Mozilla is a shell company for Google.
- admax88qqq 4y agoIt's really not
- IntelMiner 4y agoOnly if the tinfoil is cutting off your blood supply
- DiabloD3 4y agoAlthough I understand your sentiment, Mozilla was blackmailed by Google (using their yearly donation to keep Google Search the default); they were forced to either give up $300m/yr or kill Rust and cripple Firefox development. Mitchell Baker, the current CEO and the CEO during this whole thing, makes $3m/yr, yet Firefox userbase keeps shrinking due to management throwing the engineering team under the bus. I think it is safe to say that, although Mozilla isn't a shell company for Google, Mitchell Baker might be a shell CEO on Google's payroll.
- brigade 4y agoIt's royalty free, not patent free. If AOMedia had no applicable patents, the patent license under issue wouldn't exist.
- nwah1 4y agoFraunhofer is based in Germany and likely is pushing this.
- j16sdiz 4y ago> "The Commission has information that AOM and its members may be imposing licensing terms (mandatory royalty-free cross licensing) on innovators that were not a part of AOM at the time of the creation of the AV1 technical, but whose patents are deemed essential to (its) technical specifications," read the questionnaire. Cross licensing is the whole point for creating a free (as in beer) standard body. There are too many existing patent in this field. If mandatory cross-licening is seen as a problem, it will be impossible to create new video standard.
- mappu 4y agoMy reading of that statement is that there's no problem with mandatory cross-licensing. Instead it's about other companies - who did not help with AV1 development - being strong-armed into joining the cross-licensing agreement.
- JoshTriplett 4y agoCompany maintaining patent pool to strong-arm others: how dare you strong-arm us into not strong-arming others?
- josefx 4y agoCompany doing its own thing: Installing a standards conformant web browser forces us to sign over all our IP to Google.
- Someone 4y agoThe problem seems to be “but whose patents are deemed essential to (its) technical specifications” phrase. I read that as an investigation on this (real or imaginary; that’s what the investigation is about) stream of events: - AOM members created a standard for which they, together, thought owned all patents - they found out that isn’t true. Other parties hold patent(s) that are essential for the standard. - they strong-arm the holder(s) of those patent(s) to join AOM and, with it, license their patent royalty-free to the others in the group. Whether it happened I wouldn’t know, but step 3 should, IMO, be illegal. Royalty-free cross licensing is more beneficial for those who have the capital to build millions of chips implementing the standard than for smaller players. It’s like a few elephants forcing a mouse to have dinner together and splitting the bill.
- bradleybuda 4y agoThe EU’s antitrust policy at this point effectively boils down to: if a large American tech company does something, it must be bad.
- relueeuler 4y ago+1. Let’s regulate all the things!
- dzhiurgis 4y agoAt this point it's investigation, why can't we wait for conclusion. Also, people in EU trust EU wayyy more than US tech companies.
- iasay 4y agoI distrust their motivations. I don't know anyone who doesn't either. Their regulatory and privacy stance is actively harmful at the moment.
- Kbelicius 4y ago> Their regulatory and privacy stance is actively harmful at the moment. What makes you say that? I like having privacy and don't see how the EU is being harmful to me with its stance on it.
- geodel 4y agoAnother "Proud to be EU citizen" moment I guess.
- endisneigh 4y agoI’m curious - has any mainstream tech come out of the EU in the past decade? Is the strategy entirely defensive?
- caramelcustard 4y agoDepends on what tech industry we're talking about. Do you consider car parts to be mainstream? Manufacturing equipment?
- yrgulation 4y agoThats ok, those industries haven't worked out well either. Tweaking car designs here and there is not innovation.
- Arkanum 4y agoNot wanting to sound too snarky, but TSMC is entirely dependent on the Dutch ASML for the machines used in their fabs.
- ksec 4y agoMainstream in What? Consumer or as in Industries? Like Telecom Equipment from Ericsson, EUV from ASML, Your Mobile GPU from ARM EU Branch? I mean more than half of HN never heard of SAP.
- KerrAvon 4y agoEither the lack of technical literacy on the EU’s part is a real issue, or the EU wants non-European tech companies to fold up their Euro tents completely and stop selling their products in EU countries. That’s the logical end result of this and the gatekeeper nonsense.
- hetspookjee 4y agoGiven the compromises the Apple is willing to make to keep their foot in China’s market, you can be sure that neither of the big tech companies is willing to give up on the EU market. Let alone allow the vacuum to be scooped up by a more favourable tech company.
- caramelcustard 4y agoYep, perhaps if Apple/Google decided to be more hesitant to work with more difficult markets all of this wouldn't happen.
- lvass 4y agoSisvel is pledging for 0.1~0.3 euros on AV1-capable hardware here, europe has done much worse (like with the OOXML standard) and unfortunately got away with it. This doesn't particularly affect the EU as a market, it's applied globally.
- RF_Savage 4y agoThat's quite a lot on some 0.5-3eur SoC. No wonder it is being fought and why nothing cheap has AV1 hardware.
- neither_color 4y agoThose who can no longer innovate regulate.
- volgar1x 4y agoEuropeans do innovate, they just sell to GAFAM afterwards. (-:
- duped 4y agoI haven't been keeping up to date with development. Is this the EU alleging things on behalf of Fraunhofer?
- ummonk 4y agoThis depends on the cross-licensing terms right? Like suppose AV1 becomes the standard format for web video, and as a result I use an AV1 compressor to create an AV1 video. Does that mean that if I ever come up with an invention in compression techniques and patent it I’ll then have to provide a royalty free license to AOMedia for this invention?
- brigade 4y agoYou can read it for yourself - https://aomedia.org/license/patent-license/ https://aomedia.org/license/patent-license/ First, near as I can tell, they only claim you need a patent license if you distribute an encoder/decoder. MPEG-LA has claimed distributing encoded video needed a patent license as well, but backtracked on trying to charge for it. Second, your agreement to license your own patents only covers Necessary Claims on the Implementation (both the specific implementation you're distributing and the reference.) Which by definition can't cover any future inventions, because if the implementation already infringed them then they aren't novel inventions. But it does explicitly claim to include IP you acquire in the future that applies. Also, I think the intention is that the license you have to grant only covers implementations of AOMedia standards; if a VVC implementation or whatever also used your invention, that would probably need a separate license you could charge for.
- derf_ 4y ago> Also, I think the intention is that the license you have to grant only covers implementations of AOMedia standards; if a VVC implementation or whatever also used your invention, that would probably need a separate license you could charge for. That is correct. Source: I helped draft the license.
- ummonk 4y agoOkay yeah this is very reasonable. Hopefully the EU drops this investigation quickly, given the obvious lack of legitimate antitrust concerns here.
- shmerl 4y agoWhat kind of nonsense is that? They should investigate MPEG-LA instead which likely paid the commission for doing this.
- lvass 4y agoThe(?) AV1 patent pool is with Sisvel this time, not MPEG-LA.
- shmerl 4y agoIsn't the whole point of the pool to be a defensive mechanism? It's similar to OIN in the idea: https://openinventionnetwork.com https://openinventionnetwork.com In contrast MPEG-LA uses it as an offensive tool (i.e. for protection racket). So I don't even see it as comparable in principle.
- MallocVoidstar 4y agoSisvel's AV1 patent pool is intended to stop AV1 from being royalty-free
- shmerl 4y agoWhat does it have to do with AOM then? Their goal is to keep it royalty free. So those who try to make an offensive pool should be investigated, not AOM. Hopefully this will backfire to those trolls in a big way.
- WastingMyTime89 4y agoTo be fair, as much as I dislike it, the commission may have a point. Basically AOM is using its size to make itself unavoidable and force free cross-licensing on what used to be non-members. This is mostly advantageous to the founders who know avoid paying fees to license the tech. From afar, it does indeed seem to hinder competition.
- JoshTriplett 4y agoPatents hinder competition; this is a sensible response to take patents out of the picture. It's advantageous to anyone making use of media and looking to avoid the gatekeeping associated with MPEG formats. At one point, copyleft was under fire on antitrust grounds, based on similar arguments. Fortunately that was defeated on the basis that it wasn't actually bad for consumers, quite the opposite in fact. Hopefully this attack will be defeated similarly.
- lokar 4y agoEU antitrust does not depend only on consumer harm.
- JoshTriplett 4y agoAnd if it makes the wrong decision in this case, it will cause consumer harm.
- cryptonym 4y agoIt would encourage competition by allowing other actors to create alternative solutions and get money from it. Competition can be good for consumer if new format technically superiors can emerge. Might be harder if this market is locked by huge companies that don't want to pay and push an inferior but artificially free solution. That's an argument, not my opinion, I don't know what to think about this issue.
- 4y ago
- EugeneOZ 4y agoWe need some petition to stop this madness.
- mritun 4y agoSince the current US government is anti-tech as well, EU and CN governments are cranking up the pressure to get more money from the US tech. I guess this will last until next administration which will do the same to the EU companies. Once tariffs come for Bosch, and EU giants it will even out. Both governments will get more money, customers will pay higher prices, tech giants will keep making money. Everyone wins, somehow.
- hnbad 4y agoI don't know what you mean by calling the "current US government" anti-tech. During the Trump presidency the governing party constantly called for regulation of "Big Tech" and even quasi-nationalizing social media platforms over "first amendment" concerns (which don't apply to private companies). By comparison the current US government seems fairly tame and anti-interventionist. It's also strange you consider tariffs an equivalent of antitrust and consumer protection regulation. US tech wouldn't have to give the EU "more money" if it followed the laws and regulations of the market it wants to operate in. Considering how obstructionist US tech companies of any size have been when it comes to basics like data protection and privacy, I'd say the fines these companies have had to pay so far are actually too low. As for whether the AV1 case is actually anti-competitive, that's for the investigation to determine. But using a market leader position to strongarm other companies into agreeing to terms that weaken their ability to defend themselves would definitely be an antitrust issue, if the investigation determines that is what is going on.
- kregasaurusrex 4y agoSo a standard for interoperability developed with 'patent ceasefires' saying party X won't sue party Y if both share their patent portfolios with one another is considered to be anti-competitive behavior? In the US this is fairly common among tech companies that perfom this sharing under FRAND terms with one another, and saves a lot of headache in avoiding litigation. The most popular existing codec AVC/H.264/MPEG-4 Part 10 is owned by the MPEGLA group with ~5500 active patents[0] in its portfolio, and the royalty sharing agreements[1] involved are free in small volumes yet become expensive at scale. A multi-tier fee structure for both hardware OEMs (think like the MPEG-2 license fee on the raspberry pi) and video distributors (Netflix et al) exist, where several large tech companies decided to band together in order to create a codec which isn't at the mercy of paying these license fees. However, Sisvel wants to make their case against AOMedia's goal of a widely distributed free codec and extract up to 32 cents per device[2] based on their pool of a couple hundred patents[3] for both VP9 and AV1 codecs. We'll likely see this go to court and possibly drawn out over a long stretch of time if FRAND terms aren't able to be agreed upon between these parties. Having a uniform royalty-free standard would be a net win for everyone involved- chip designers can add in an AV1 encoder/decoder without paying a license fee, software companies can freely encode & distribute AV1 videos, and end users have access to free video editing tools that wouldn't need to pay MPEGLA/Sisvel either. The alternative is waiting for the patents to expire and continue rewarding the rent-seeking behavior of NPEs/holding companies created to extract value at every possible step. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Video_Coding#Patent_holders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Video_Coding#Patent_h... [1] https://www.mpegla.com/wp-content/uploads/avcweb.pdf https://www.mpegla.com/wp-content/uploads/avcweb.pdf Slides 7 & 8 [2] https://www.sisvel.com/licensing-programs/audio-and-video-coding-decoding/video-coding-platform/license-terms/av1-license-terms https://www.sisvel.com/licensing-programs/audio-and-video-co... [3] https://www.sisvel.com/licensing-programs/audio-and-video-coding-decoding/video-coding-platform/patents https://www.sisvel.com/licensing-programs/audio-and-video-co...
- kasabali 4y agoIf this results is Sisvel's favor, I hope all Youtube stops serving VP9, AV1 or any newer codecs in Europe instead of paying up a single penny to rent seekers. "Hi Europe, enjoy your low-res bitrate starved H264 stream, for eternity." or for 30 years or so, after all HEVC patents expire and all of its rent seekers gave up on it.
- dang 4y agoUrl changed from https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/07/07/apple-google-facebooks-av1-standards-group-under-antitrust-investigation-in-eu https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/07/07/apple-google-face..., which points to this.
- friendzis 4y agoI think at the core of this probe is strong-arming by market domination, hence antitrust. In theory, patent cross-licensing agreements should be designed to pool up patents covering the standard, so that every user of such standard could use it regardless of patent portfolio. In practice, with large enough market share to push standards on end users standard consortium can develop a standard inherently infringing on patents held by non-members and use market domination to strong-arm non-members into either reducing presence while litigating or joining the cross-licensing agreement, effectively rendering patents held unenforceable. From what it reads that is the issue: patent pools coupled with market dominance used to expand said patent pool. Other commenters mention an orthogonal issue - cross-licensed patent pools as a tool to effectively eliminate software patents. However, this misses the main point raised by this probe - which companies emerge victorious and in this case (such cases) the founding members emerge on top due to pre-established market dominance.
- baxuz 4y agoSo pushing USB-C as a standard is not anti-competitive, but pushing for AV1 is?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- gardaani 4y agoHere's more details about it: https://mlexmarketinsight.com/news-hub/editors-picks/area-of-expertise/antitrust/tech-giants-alliance-for-open-media-triggers-eu-antitrust-questions-into-sep-licensing https://mlexmarketinsight.com/news-hub/editors-picks/area-of... - some of the EU antitrust questions: "It is also querying companies on AV1's compatibility with other video codec standards, such as whether a smartphone or a browser can support both AV1/VP9 and competing codecs HEVC and VVC simultaneously." "And if AV1 were to turn into a new market standard, the commission asked, what would be the impact on companies’ ability to compete with AV1’s AOM licensing conditions, and their incentives to work on alternative video codec technology that may be non-royalty free?" "Brussels is trying to understand the rationale of companies that didn't choose AOM and instead have chosen to license the AV1 and VP9 standard-essential patents through Sisvel's pool."
- sylware 4y agoThis is stellar non-sense. Legal material to protect the algorithms from the toxic patent system being anti-competitive? This piece of news is fishy, or there is some rot to remove from EU bodies...