4 ms·

>The patent situation surrounding AV1 is complex. It claims to be a free format but multiple entities claim patents that cover it. A submarine patent lawsuit se

>The patent situation surrounding AV1 is complex. It claims to be a free format but multiple entities claim patents that cover it. A submarine patent lawsuit seems likely. This can be said about anything. Sounds like FUD. There hasn't been a successful lawsuit yet, right ?

riversflow 4y ago
> Sounds like FUD The Alliance for Open Source Media (the group behind AV1) is the subject of an ongoing investigation by the European Commission[1] who, per the article, appear to be threatening those who distribute software decoding with a fine of 10% of global revenue. According to this article[2], Sisvel, the patent group claims its licensing for AV1 is > more convenient than licensing from individual patent holders, which in this case include companies like Philips, GE, NTT, Ericsson, Dolby and Toshiba So, yes there is FUD around AV1, but as FUD goes, it’s pretty legit considering the players and their “nationality ”. [1]https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-eu-antitrust-regulators-probing-tech-group-aoms-video-licensing-policy-2022-07-07/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-eu-antitrust-re... [2]https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/patent-group-wants-a-new-toll-on-the-streaming-video-road/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/patent-group-wants-a-new-to... Going to add that I don’t have any knowledge of the legitimacy of the patents involved, and think the legitimacy of software patents generally is often questionable.
threeseed 4y ago
> There hasn't been a successful lawsuit yet Why would it come to a lawsuit ? Companies would simply just pay the royalty. That's how it has been for previous codecs.
- bubblethink 4y ago
  Previous codes have been designed and sold as patented codecs. AV1 is meant to be royalty free by design. The claimants of the alleged patents can ask for money, but eventually somebody will refuse due to the very explicit royalty-free promise in AV1, and there should be a lawsuit. We have not seen that yet. As a practical matter, even if people are paying money silently, it would get on the grapevine. We haven't even seen any evidence of that either.
  - fomine3 4y ago
    Even if creator said it's royalty free!, it's not guaranteed that there are no patent violation.
    - bubblethink 4y ago
      Hence, we would hear if people are being 1) sued, or 2) or are paying. We haven't seen any evidence of either.
      - int_19h 4y ago
        A submarine patent approach implies waiting for it to become popular enough that you can extort companies into paying, rather than just dropping the codec in lieu of something else.

riversflow 4y ago

> Sounds like FUD The Alliance for Open Source Media (the group behind AV1) is the subject of an ongoing investigation by the European Commission[1] who, per the article, appear to be threatening those who distribute software decoding with a fine of 10% of global revenue. According to this article[2], Sisvel, the patent group claims its licensing for AV1 is > more convenient than licensing from individual patent holders, which in this case include companies like Philips, GE, NTT, Ericsson, Dolby and Toshiba So, yes there is FUD around AV1, but as FUD goes, it’s pretty legit considering the players and their “nationality ”. [1]https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-eu-antitrust-regulators-probing-tech-group-aoms-video-licensing-policy-2022-07-07/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-eu-antitrust-re... [2]https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/patent-group-wants-a-new-toll-on-the-streaming-video-road/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/patent-group-wants-a-new-to... Going to add that I don’t have any knowledge of the legitimacy of the patents involved, and think the legitimacy of software patents generally is often questionable.

threeseed 4y ago

> There hasn't been a successful lawsuit yet Why would it come to a lawsuit ? Companies would simply just pay the royalty. That's how it has been for previous codecs.

bubblethink 4y ago
Previous codes have been designed and sold as patented codecs. AV1 is meant to be royalty free by design. The claimants of the alleged patents can ask for money, but eventually somebody will refuse due to the very explicit royalty-free promise in AV1, and there should be a lawsuit. We have not seen that yet. As a practical matter, even if people are paying money silently, it would get on the grapevine. We haven't even seen any evidence of that either.
- fomine3 4y ago
  Even if creator said it's royalty free!, it's not guaranteed that there are no patent violation.
  - bubblethink 4y ago
    Hence, we would hear if people are being 1) sued, or 2) or are paying. We haven't seen any evidence of either.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      A submarine patent approach implies waiting for it to become popular enough that you can extort companies into paying, rather than just dropping the codec in lieu of something else.