4 ms·

This 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 a

by ummonk 4y ago

This 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 ago
You 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 ago
  Okay yeah this is very reasonable. Hopefully the EU drops this investigation quickly, given the obvious lack of legitimate antitrust concerns here.

by ummonk 4y ago

brigade 4y ago

You 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 ago
Okay yeah this is very reasonable. Hopefully the EU drops this investigation quickly, given the obvious lack of legitimate antitrust concerns here.