3 ms·
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
by 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.