4 ms·

...is the argument that these companies that didn't participate in the development of AV1 now can't avoid using AV1, and thus are forced to license essential AV

...is the argument that these companies that didn't participate in the development of AV1 now can't avoid using AV1, and thus are forced to license essential AV1 patents under the terms offered? (so, is the EU also saying that once a standard becomes big enough, every essential patent must be licenseable under terms the EU finds acceptable, even if the patent holder didn't agree to that beforehand or possibly even participate?)

WastingMyTime89 4y ago
The issue is more than they can’t avoid using AV1 and are therefore forced to license their patents for free to the rest of the consortium while AV1 probably infringes.
- brigade 4y ago
  If they don't have to license AV1 patents, then how exactly are they being strong-armed into granting licenses to their own patents?
  - hnbad 4y ago
    The comment you replied to literally said that they can't avoid AV1. Other commentors here have called AV1 an "open standard". Note that the EU isn't claiming that the standard itself is bad. They're saying the cross-licensing terms are anti-competitive. The cross-licensing may have made sense for major companies like Apple, Google and Meta but it significantly disadvantages smaller companies which may need to rely on their patent arsenal as a deterrent but also face economic pressure to adopt the standard.
    - brigade 4y ago
      So which company is large enough to have patents that supposedly are essential to AV1 despite not participating in the process, is small enough that AOMedia overlooked those patents during the standardization process, yet is large enough to rely on those patents as a deterrent against AOMedia licensees, and obviously can’t be an NPE since they feel pressure to ship AV1?
      - tatersolid 4y ago
        Fraunhofer, a German company with a large AV patent portfolio. They made gobs of money on their MP3 and AAC patents in the past.
    - LeonidasXIV 4y ago
      But if these companies hold patents that are being infringed by AV1 they don't have to join AOM they could also… sue them. This whole thing seems to be a breeding ground for submarine patents, where in the end nobody has an actual applicable patent to show but the thread of pulling one out of the hat is there to make things worse.
      - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
        It’s never that simple. They have to join AOM if they want to use AV1 and they need to use AV1 if they want to be relevant because all the big players banded together and made that unavoidable. That’s the heart of the anticompetitive argument. Most companies don’t exist to sue for patent infringement. They are not patent trolls. The point of competition law is that they should be able to do business without having to go to court with a conglomerate.
friendzis 4y ago
Yes, I think that is exactly the argument. It is not cross-licensing agreement per se being investigated, but 1. the inherent absence of some patents required for the standard/implementation to function in initial patent pool 2. use of pre-established market dominance of founding members to limit non-member patent holders' ability to create competing standard and effectively strong-arming them to join. A very similar issue has been raised against Microsoft in the antitrust case regarding iexplore. Iexplore has been deemed "good enough" default that market dominance of Windows with iexplore preinstalled as the default effectively strong-armed everyone involved to at least maintain compatibility with iexplore.
- brigade 4y ago
  > the inherent absence of some patents required for the standard/implementation to function in initial patent pool I guess this is the disconnect; AOMedia worked very hard during standardization to avoid infringing existing patents held by non-members. There is a very strong belief that Sisvel’s claims on AV1 are fundamentally invalid, and while that would be nice to prove in court, Sisvel’s members arent stupid enough to directly sue anyone that can seriously fight back. Thus, the terms to license the actually essential patents to at least limit the damage Sisvel can do. Anyway VVC is already technologically superior for anyone that wants a competing standard. If it fails, that’s 100% on the behavior of HEVC patent holders, not because of AOMedia.

WastingMyTime89 4y ago

The issue is more than they can’t avoid using AV1 and are therefore forced to license their patents for free to the rest of the consortium while AV1 probably infringes.

brigade 4y ago
If they don't have to license AV1 patents, then how exactly are they being strong-armed into granting licenses to their own patents?
- hnbad 4y ago
  The comment you replied to literally said that they can't avoid AV1. Other commentors here have called AV1 an "open standard". Note that the EU isn't claiming that the standard itself is bad. They're saying the cross-licensing terms are anti-competitive. The cross-licensing may have made sense for major companies like Apple, Google and Meta but it significantly disadvantages smaller companies which may need to rely on their patent arsenal as a deterrent but also face economic pressure to adopt the standard.
  - brigade 4y ago
    So which company is large enough to have patents that supposedly are essential to AV1 despite not participating in the process, is small enough that AOMedia overlooked those patents during the standardization process, yet is large enough to rely on those patents as a deterrent against AOMedia licensees, and obviously can’t be an NPE since they feel pressure to ship AV1?
    - tatersolid 4y ago
      Fraunhofer, a German company with a large AV patent portfolio. They made gobs of money on their MP3 and AAC patents in the past.
  - LeonidasXIV 4y ago
    But if these companies hold patents that are being infringed by AV1 they don't have to join AOM they could also… sue them. This whole thing seems to be a breeding ground for submarine patents, where in the end nobody has an actual applicable patent to show but the thread of pulling one out of the hat is there to make things worse.
    - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
      It’s never that simple. They have to join AOM if they want to use AV1 and they need to use AV1 if they want to be relevant because all the big players banded together and made that unavoidable. That’s the heart of the anticompetitive argument. Most companies don’t exist to sue for patent infringement. They are not patent trolls. The point of competition law is that they should be able to do business without having to go to court with a conglomerate.

friendzis 4y ago

Yes, I think that is exactly the argument. It is not cross-licensing agreement per se being investigated, but 1. the inherent absence of some patents required for the standard/implementation to function in initial patent pool 2. use of pre-established market dominance of founding members to limit non-member patent holders' ability to create competing standard and effectively strong-arming them to join. A very similar issue has been raised against Microsoft in the antitrust case regarding iexplore. Iexplore has been deemed "good enough" default that market dominance of Windows with iexplore preinstalled as the default effectively strong-armed everyone involved to at least maintain compatibility with iexplore.

brigade 4y ago
> the inherent absence of some patents required for the standard/implementation to function in initial patent pool I guess this is the disconnect; AOMedia worked very hard during standardization to avoid infringing existing patents held by non-members. There is a very strong belief that Sisvel’s claims on AV1 are fundamentally invalid, and while that would be nice to prove in court, Sisvel’s members arent stupid enough to directly sue anyone that can seriously fight back. Thus, the terms to license the actually essential patents to at least limit the damage Sisvel can do. Anyway VVC is already technologically superior for anyone that wants a competing standard. If it fails, that’s 100% on the behavior of HEVC patent holders, not because of AOMedia.