3 ms·

Patents 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

Patents 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 ago
EU antitrust does not depend only on consumer harm.
- JoshTriplett 4y ago
  And if it makes the wrong decision in this case, it will cause consumer harm.
  - cryptonym 4y ago
    It 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.
    - mort96 4y ago
      Preventing interoperable media codec standards is consumer harm. The status quo, which AOM is fighting against, is insanely harmful to the consumer.
      - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
        Is it really? Because all the members of AOM are posting insane profits including on their media part and media codec is an insignificant part of a smartphone price. Honestly the whole thing looks mostly like a play from big players to pay less on the encoding side. It’s mostly irrelevant to consumers.
        JoshTriplett 4y ago
        Smartphones are hardly the only thing that cares about codecs. So does anyone embedding a video online, anyone building video editing software, any browser engine, any video call system, anyone building tools that play with video (e.g. AI/ML and every random "make you look like a cat" system), and a thousand other things that want to innovate around video.
    - kasabali 4y ago
      > Competition can be good for consumer if new format technically superiors can emerge. Industry has had its chance and they choose to nickel and dime everyone to the degree that noone who uses HEVC can be sure they're not infringing someone's patent even if they've payed up every single patent pool. AOM is others response to this ridiculous status quo, within the same pate t framework. So if you don't hate the game, don't hate the new players, either.
fomine3 4y ago
I don't know every patents are anti-competitive. Generally I against software patent because some ideas are seems to obvious, but some algorithm/encoding technique could be worth patented (or say inventor should be rewarded), though it's pain to pay for each.
- mort96 4y ago
  The only things patents achieve are to give huge companies the rights to squeeze small competitors out of the market, and to let patent trolls siphon money off of companies which actually make stuff. They need to go. This isn't limited to software patents. Patents don't protect the little guy. They certainly don't help the individual inventor, even though protecting the inventor is always the given rationale.

lokar 4y ago

EU antitrust does not depend only on consumer harm.

JoshTriplett 4y ago
And if it makes the wrong decision in this case, it will cause consumer harm.
- cryptonym 4y ago
  It 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.
  - mort96 4y ago
    Preventing interoperable media codec standards is consumer harm. The status quo, which AOM is fighting against, is insanely harmful to the consumer.
    - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
      Is it really? Because all the members of AOM are posting insane profits including on their media part and media codec is an insignificant part of a smartphone price. Honestly the whole thing looks mostly like a play from big players to pay less on the encoding side. It’s mostly irrelevant to consumers.
      - JoshTriplett 4y ago
        Smartphones are hardly the only thing that cares about codecs. So does anyone embedding a video online, anyone building video editing software, any browser engine, any video call system, anyone building tools that play with video (e.g. AI/ML and every random "make you look like a cat" system), and a thousand other things that want to innovate around video.
  - kasabali 4y ago
    > Competition can be good for consumer if new format technically superiors can emerge. Industry has had its chance and they choose to nickel and dime everyone to the degree that noone who uses HEVC can be sure they're not infringing someone's patent even if they've payed up every single patent pool. AOM is others response to this ridiculous status quo, within the same pate t framework. So if you don't hate the game, don't hate the new players, either.

fomine3 4y ago

I don't know every patents are anti-competitive. Generally I against software patent because some ideas are seems to obvious, but some algorithm/encoding technique could be worth patented (or say inventor should be rewarded), though it's pain to pay for each.

mort96 4y ago
The only things patents achieve are to give huge companies the rights to squeeze small competitors out of the market, and to let patent trolls siphon money off of companies which actually make stuff. They need to go. This isn't limited to software patents. Patents don't protect the little guy. They certainly don't help the individual inventor, even though protecting the inventor is always the given rationale.