5 ms·

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.

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.