17 ms·

Munich court tells Netflix to stop using H.265 video coding to stream UHD

197 points by clouddrover 3y ago

lencastre 3y ago
Curious to know how many days/weeks it’ll take Netflix to transcode all their 4K shows from 265 4K to 264 4K. I mean, it’s gotta be more than 10 hours.
- ddorian43 3y ago
  They should have them by default for clients that don't support x265.
menacingly 3y ago
I can't think of anything to say that doesn't sound like a free and unencumbered software bumper sticker. But... like... c'mon.
AndrewKemendo 3y ago
Remember when patents were considered this grand thing? That, should you be so lucky to create some great idea and then patent it, the world would be better and you’d be rewarded for your genius! I am 1st or second author on two granted patents. I have received neither any compensation nor any benefit for it. I don’t even get to do anything with them because they are property of another company. Patents don’t even appear to be serving their intended purpose, I mean Broadcom odd just blocking the use, meaning Netflix subscribers just got a worse service now when Netflix could easily just pay to license like they should have. Ridiculous
- rubyfan 3y ago
  Like most government systems these days corporate interests have turned it into a moat.
- spacebanana7 3y ago
  Trademarks and copyright are enough to compensate innovators. The only possible exception I can think where patents are distinctly useful is Pharma, and even there it's not exactly a closed case. In aerospace, software and electrical engineering; there are many examples of consumer harm from patents and very few, if any, examples where patents enabled innovators to do useful things which were otherwise economically unfeasible.
  - jwestbury 3y ago
    The purpose of patents is to encourage disclosure. By disclosing how something is accomplished, a business is rewarded with exclusive use of their method for a limited period. I think the argument to be made in many fields is that patent law does not necessarily function correctly when technology advances so quickly.
    - coldpie 3y ago
      What is the value in that disclosure? No software developer has ever looked at a patent for inspiration or to learn how something works.
      - eviks 3y ago
        Easier/faster replication/implementation/new invention etc is the value. There are other people besides software developers that can look at a patent for inspiration and hire software developers to implement it
        Kim_Bruning 3y ago
        Maybe this happens somewhere in some industry I'm not aware of? There are many different kinds of documents I use to help me write code, but looking at even just a few (software) patents, they never seemed like they were written in a way that was useful to me?
        nitwit005 3y ago
        The patents are deliberately obfuscated these days, which makes this fairly difficult to actually do.
- thinkingtoilet 3y ago
  >I mean Netflix subscribers just got a worse service now. Your first points have merit but this is an odd point. Of course Netflix customers will get worse service. If you start a business and succeed by illegally using someone else's patent then you (and your customers) should suffer from a legal decision.
  - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
    The whole point would be that Netflix would license the patents from Broadcom. Instead either Broadcom is blocking them to prevent their growth, or Netflix is trying to be greedy. Either way, nowhere here are patents helping or protecting citizens/consumers
    - sigzero 3y ago
      > Either way, nowhere here are patents helping or protecting citizens/consumers Patents are for not for helping or protecting citizens/consumers. Patents are solely for protecting intellectual property.
    - gosub100 3y ago
      My (total guess) is that Broadcom is trying to be greedy, probably asking for a ridiculous sum that would make Netflix' use unprofitable.
      - freejazz 3y ago
        Or maybe netflix is so cheap and run on the margins, that they can't afford to license the technology, which is why they tried using it for free...
        Kim_Bruning 3y ago
        There's supposed to be an H.265 patent pool at the very least.
        3y ago
- mhb 3y ago
  You're conflating two issues. Should the cashiers at supermarkets be upset that they don't get a share of the profit from every canned soup sale?
  - skavi 3y ago
    I think it is not so crazy an opinion that surplus value is unfairly distributed.
    - bad_user 3y ago
      The cashiers at the supermarket are paid a wage they agreed on when they were hired. There's nothing more fair than supply and demand.
      - earthling8118 3y ago
        The number may be what they agreed upon but the value definitely doesn't remain stable.
        bad_user 3y ago
        Right. And the workers can renegotiate, or are free to leave.
      - pgeorgi 3y ago
        Supply and demand is fair, if and only if both sides are entirely free to walk away from the deal. Depending on the labor market situation this isn't necessarily a given when the alternative is starvation.
        bad_user 3y ago
        In the West, the alternative is seldom starvation. Given the very low rate of unemployment, despite the post-pandemic climate, it's pretty obvious that people still have choice when seeking employment. And there is always choice, which includes going back to school or moving to a different city. Heck, given the Internet, you can get education for free (until the ad-blockers ruin everything by normalizing paywalls). People forget, or never learned, what involuntary servitude or starvation was actually like, or what actually happened when the hammer and sickle was adopted as a state religion. And related to the parent, in the words of Thomas Sowell, the minimum wage is always zero. Or in other words, people should be glad that the demand for cashiers still exists, until the job gets fully automated. I find it funny, yet unsettling, that I have to state the obvious on HN of all places.
- mrtksn 3y ago
  > I have received neither any compensation nor any benefit for it Is this because your invention wasn't commercially exploited or because your invention wasn't protected by the patents(because of reasons)? Correct me if I'm wrong but In this particular case it appears that the patents of Broadcom worked as intended and they will be compensated if their invention is used. A good example of actually investing in inventing something, then make money with it thanks to enforcement of patents. This doesn't appear to be a patent troll case but actual technology with actual use case in an actual multi billion dollar corporation and the other corporation who invented the technology demands to be compensated for the use their tech in this multi billion dolar trade.
  - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
    But they aren’t being compensated, they are just blocking the use in those markets. Mine are heavily cited: https://patents.justia.com/inventor/andrew-kemendo https://patents.justia.com/inventor/andrew-kemendo
    - mrtksn 3y ago
      I don't think this is the correct description of the situation. Is there any indication that if Netflix pays a fair amount, Broadcom will still not let Netflix use the tech to deliver its services? The court order seems like an implementation detail for the enforcement of the patent. The court orders the cessation of the illegal activity, it's up to the relevant parties to come to an agreement and continue doing the same thing but this time legally.
      - freedomben 3y ago
        Indeed, the embedded LinkedIn post from a Netflix "technologist" in TFA seems to imply that paying for it is a possibility if not a likely outcome.
    - tmikaeld 3y ago
      Interesting patent, the "Near Eye Wavefront Emulating Display". > "..tapered optical waveguide light emitting layer and piezoelectric-driven decentered microlens array" Sounds similar to "Magic Leap Fiber Scanning Display" ?
- foobarian 3y ago
  > Patents don’t even appear to be serving their intended purpose, I mean Netflix subscribers just got a worse service now. Think longer term. Without patents, maybe there would be no H.265 to use in the first place. So consumers win after all.
  - neffy 3y ago
    Or perhaps without patents there wouldn't be false monopolisation preventing better standards being contributed by people who can't afford expensive lawyers.
  - thomastjeffery 3y ago
    AV1 was literally created to be patent-free. So yes, please continue to threaten me with a good time.
    - throw0101c 3y ago
      > AV1 was literally created to be patent-free. AV1 was created to be license-fee-free. There are lots of patents in AV1, it's just that their holders don't ask for money: > Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Licensor, on behalf of itself and successors in interest and assigns, grants Licensee a non-sublicensable, perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as expressly stated in this License) patent license to its Necessary Claims to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import or distribute any Implementation. * https://aomedia.org/license/patent-license/ https://aomedia.org/license/patent-license/
      - thomastjeffery 3y ago
        Right, that's the method they used to liberate AV1 from patent monopolies.
      - tensor 3y ago
        Because if they didn't patent it then some other asshole could, and deny them rights to their own invention, because the patent system is stupid.
- vadiml 3y ago
  I don't understand really why these patents are granted. Software is math and math formulas are not patentable. The patent (and copyrights) system today is actually subverted by greedy players and instead of promoting progress and sciences is serving to enrich the middlemen by artificially SLOWING the progress.
  - louthy 3y ago
    Saying “software is math” is akin to saying “books are just letters”; the building blocks of software is not what people want to protect, it’s the idea and the effort to invent. Whether software should be patentable or not is obviously open for discussion, but saying it’s just math isn’t really enough of an argument.
    - no_wizard 3y ago
      The best of the mainstream arguments against software patents has always been: What does Intellectual Property and Copyright not cover that patents do when it comes to software? I only have a few friends I trust on such a topic, and my understanding is between IP and Copyright laws from them (ones a public policy researcher, the other a lawyer), it would be more than sufficient for protecting companies work and patents were lobbied only because their enforcement is more heavy handed, IE, it can stifle competition under the guise of "patent infringement"
      - louthy 3y ago
        > The best of the mainstream arguments against software patents has always been: What does Intellectual Property and Copyright not cover that patents do when it comes to software? Instinctively, that’s where I think it should be, agreed.
      - jcranmer 3y ago
        > What does Intellectual Property and Copyright not cover that patents do when it comes to software? Copyright cannot and does not prevent someone from clean-room engineering a replacement for your software. Patents can do that. (Whether or not they should is a different question, but that's not what you asked). FWIW, patents are one of the forms of intellectual property.
- skywhopper 3y ago
  I mean, I doubt Broadcom is “blocking” the use of this algorithm, they are just demanding payment. That said, software patents are a huge drag on innovation, which is the opposite of the intent of the patent system, and thus they should be disallowed.
- stainablesteel 3y ago
  the spirit of the original purpose of patents is being abused definitely
- donatj 3y ago
  My friend has a patent that made his company millions. He got a plaque and a pat on the back. He still got cussed out when he paid for his $100 steel toe boots (required for the job) with the company card. He’s an engineer in heavy machinery.
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  > Patents don’t even appear to be serving their intended purpose The intended purpose of patents is well documented: they are supposed to result in technology being published rather than being kept secret. It isn't clear why a legal patent system is viewed as compatible with a legal trade secrets regime.
- freejazz 3y ago
  Sorry, you thought you'd be rich just because you are named on two patents? You don't think it matters what the patents regards nor how useful they are to others? It seems like you don't even own the patents... I'm struggling to understand the point of your "criticism"
  - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
    In the modern world, inventors often don't own the patents to their own inventions. I'd be very interested to hear from people who actually used a software patent in a useful manner. (Ie. Could they actually write a successful implementation, based on the patent text)
    - freejazz 3y ago
      That's not true at all. I've litigated patents owned by their inventors. It is true that small-time inventors often have to sell them because they cannot afford to enforce their own patents due to the high costs of litigating against a much larger commercial entity. >In the modern world, the inventors often don't own the patents to their own inventions. Right but that's most likely because of his employer... so it seems entirely besides the point of whatever principle you are tilting at.
      - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
        Oh, that's interesting! Very different from my own personal experience in life, and the experience of people I've worked with, as you may have gathered. I'm definitely interested in learning about an opposite experience. Care to share? Were these "Software" patents? Hardware patents? Gene Patents? Which country? Do you have references to the patents and court cases?
        freejazz 3y ago
        What would you like to know? I'm not going to identify the patents nor their owners, as they never asked to be involved in this conversation, but I'm happy to share my own personal experiences. The patents were for a distributed networking system, that included hardware components, to be used in a particular industry. This is in the US. We defeated an Alice motion, with the court declaring that our patents were valid. Ultimately, we lost on a jury verdict. I see many of your posts and find them disagreeable. While I am not doubting your personal experiences, you seem to place them above the very clear incentive structures that exist today, which force patent owners to have to sell their patents because they cannot afford to enforce them against the likes of Netflix or Broadcom or Google. The big companies are free to infringe on such patents. That's why I find it disappointing when I see people express dismay over the fact that a patent owner would sell their interests to a non-practicing-entity that will attempt to license and enforce the patent. Such a patent owner has no little to capitalize from their invention otherwise. In the event they do not sell, then they absolutely need a litigation financier in order to satisfy the costs of enforcement ($1m-$2m) via litigation. For the most part, the system is stacked in favor of the large companies, so I find it very bizarre to repeatedly see comments that come out agains the rights and interests of such inventors.
- _ugfj 3y ago
  I know at least one patent author for whom the system worked exactly as designed. That being my uncle. Imagine the literal bearded tinkerer in his garage inventing a (much) better sprinkler head. What's the next step? Without the patent system, I guess raise money, build a factory and establish yourself in the market? With the patent system, he sold it to one of the largest manufacturers and today AFAIK about a third of sprinkler heads sold in the US are his invention. He was paid handsomely for the decade plus of tinkering, the manufacturer got a great invention without spending a decade on R&D. Win all around. Notably this was a physical object and not maths.
  - thfuran 3y ago
    >Notably this was a physical object and not maths Why is that notable?
    - s_dev 3y ago
      You're not supposed to be able to patent 'Mathematics' or 'Nature' because these phenomena are 'discovered' and not 'invented'. You can patent a device that exploits a natural phenomena but not the phenomena itself.
      - thfuran 3y ago
        Unless an algorithm is observed in nature, I don't really see how it makes any more sense to claim it's a natural phenomenon than it would to make the claim of a machine.
      - Max_aaa 3y ago
        Gortex?
    - ooterness 3y ago
      There are a lot of bad software patents. Many follow the formula "abstract mathematical concept, but now it's on a computer". For a long time, that's all that was required.
- nbadg 3y ago
  I agree, but: > Patents don’t even appear to be serving their intended purpose I think there's a lot of misunderstanding of what their intended purpose actually is. The point of patents is to foster innovation -- not, as many think, to provide a financial benefit for innovation. Those may sound similar, but there are two very important differences: one, it assumes that financial benefit automatically promotes innovative things, and two, it assumes that financial benefit is the only motivation behind creating the patent system. The former is a really complicated topic, and I'm not sure how much reputable, peer-reviewed research has gone into evaluating it. But the idea that financial incentives are the reason why the patent system was created is simply not accurate. The patent system was created as a compromise: when you invent something, a patent gives you exclusive rights over it, yes. But in exchange, critically, you must publish, in detail, the exact workings of the invention. In other words, the public good intended by creating the patent system was the free exchange of ideas, even if your ability to actually use those ideas was limited by licensing fees. Today, we live in a world where (I think it's pretty clear) patents are not the most effective tool available to promote the free exchange of ideas. I mean, you can learn a whole lot more about how something works by turning to youtube than by reading its patents. So half of the bargain is gone, irrelevant. But we've gotten so used to them that I haven't heard any real, substantive, serious discussion in political circles about what that means for the patent system as a whole.
  - mhb 3y ago
    The mechanism of freely exchanging the ideas is irrelevant. The exchange refers to providing the ideas to other people whether it's by stone tablet or internet.
Alifatisk 3y ago
The sticky ads allocated roughly 75% of my screen, the text was barely visible. Since when was this even considered as a properly designed website?
- haunter 3y ago
  Why don't you use an adblocker?
  - mattsan 3y ago
    While I do agree with you and recommend everyone uses them, I still don't believe this is acceptable for websites and that we are basically forced to use adblockers if we don't want migraines
    - Alifatisk 3y ago
      For real, we should start pointing fingers at the root cause.
  - Alifatisk 3y ago
    I'm using the Hack app on iOS, it uses the integrated browser which does not block ads.
- gdevenyi 3y ago
  You saw what they wanted you to see. NOTABUG, working as intended.
- PenguinCoder 3y ago
  It's not acceptable and part of the reason I close many articles otherwise. Have you seen the crap Medium does?
  - travoc 3y ago
    I have not, because I use Brave on PC and AdGuard on iOS like a rational human.
varbhat 3y ago
Doesn't Netflix use AV1 exclusively to stream it's contents? Even if it's not using it, I think that this news will be a boon to AV1 usage adoption as i hope that HEVC will be replaced with AV1 in Netflix.
- capableweb 3y ago
  Well, I guess apparently not? Otherwise how would the court end up deciding they have to stop using HEVC, if they're not using it?
- newsclues 3y ago
  I don't think all devices support AV1 decode, so unlikely.
  - vetinari 3y ago
    All devices do not have to support AV1 decode. Send the AV1 stream to AV1-capable, fallback to AVC. Previously, there could be AV1 > HEVC > AVC priorities set up, after this only AV1 > AVC.
- nicolaslem 3y ago
  AV1 hardware decoding is still pretty rare, it seems unlikely that the cheap SOCs in smart TVs and the like are able to software decode AV1 at high resolutions.
  - vetinari 3y ago
    Nowadays its pretty common, but not everyone has relatively recent devices.
    - deaddodo 3y ago
      Nowadays = this + last generation on nVidia, Intel and AMD GPUs? It's still fairly uncommon on ARM, MIPS, etc GPUs being used in low-cost cores for TVs and set top boxes. Mali being the biggest.
Deukhoofd 3y ago
We ought to just stop using HEVC collectively, the bizarre licensing scheme they've set up is just not worth it, and AV1 allows for better compression anyway.
- grishka 3y ago
  HEVC has a very wide support for hardware acceleration while AV1 barely has any, especially for encoding. That's important, especially on battery-powered devices.
  - Diti 3y ago
    Following that rationale, why haven’t we kept using H.264, when H.265 started existing?
    - crazygringo 3y ago
      We absolutely did. H.265 took many years to gain traction, precisely because h.264 hardware decoding was widespread but h.265 hardware decoding wasn't. Codecs simply don't take off in a big way until the hardware decoding becomes widespread. And video sites will maintain dual streams for many years, to continue supporting older hardware.
    - ksec 3y ago
      >Following that rationale, why haven’t we kept using H.264, when H.265 started existing? If my memory are correct at the end of 2020 90%+ of all online video were still on H.264. We are still pretty much H.264 only simply because it is good enough for most things.
    - JamesSwift 3y ago
      _everyone_ uses 264 as the baseline fallback because every device under the sun supports it.
  - Deukhoofd 3y ago
    That very much depends. In browsers, the interface most users use nowadays, that is the complete opposite, where HEVC is not widely supported while AV1 is.
leoh 3y ago
Folks that now own VMWare, ladies and gentlemen.
- zx8080 3y ago
  I rarely saw their (vmware) products in the recent 5 years. So maybe, who cares?
  - freedomben 3y ago
    You obviously don't work in the enterprise space then. They are a major, probably the most major player in hypervisors.
    - tiberious726 3y ago
      And with RHEV dead, there aren't even any serious alternatives
mixedmath 3y ago
I didn't understand from the title. But it turns out that Broadcom has pantented "high efficiency video coding" HEVC (which I have seen before as H.265). Netflix uses HEVC to stream 4K video. Broadcom sued to stop Netflix from infringing on their patent. Presumably now Netflix will have to pay Broadcom some amount to stream over HEVC.
- capableweb 3y ago
  > Presumably now Netflix will have to pay Broadcom some amount to stream over HEVC. Presumably, Netflix will in the short-term pay X amount for this but work probably started yesterday or earlier to replace it with something that doesn't have fees to use.
  - mikerybka 3y ago
    They've been working with Intel on AV1 hardware since 2019. [1] https://research.netflix.com/publication/AV1%20at%20Netflix https://research.netflix.com/publication/AV1%20at%20Netflix
    - cubefox 3y ago
      Unfortunately AV1 hardware acceleration support was really slow. Apple only just adopted it in their new SoCs. Qualcomm didn't support it until recently either. It's probably still years till the hardware support is anywhere close to H.265, or even H.264 (the currently most common format). It's possible to decode AV1 in software, but the computation requirements are quite high.
      - lern_too_spel 3y ago
        HEVC is from the VP9 generation of codecs. Qualcomm has supported VP9 decoding since 2016 (Snapdragon 820). Unfortunately, no Apple device has ever supported hardware accelerated VP9 decode, so HEVC is the only UHD option on those devices.
      - mort96 3y ago
beeboobaa 3y ago
Thank you Germany for forcing Netflix, and all of their users, to waste more electricity and exarcabate global warming.
- pelasaco 3y ago
  don't say it loud, otherwise people will try to glue themselves on your TV
- freejazz 3y ago
  I'm sorry, but why is it that Netflix cannot license technology that it uses? It seems absurd to blame Germany for Netflix's decision to use this technology without licensing it...
  - jauntywundrkind 3y ago
    The claim is not from the mpeg-la patent pool that is supposed to cover h265/hevc. It's an outside claim. Has anyone paid Broadcom for this patent claim yet? Who? Where has this claim been made before? This is part of what's so vicious & ugly about patents. Try as you might to avoid patents, there is a multi-decade window where some giant legion of lawyers can jump out of the bushes & make huge claims against you. Business as usual can be severely disrupted at the drip of a hat to some claim no one saw coming, with no precedent.
    - freejazz 3y ago
      Well, I don't agree that it's something no one saw coming. Netflix has its own giant legion of lawyers it pays to review patents and manage Netflix's liabilities in that regard. Patents are all publicly disclosed, so I don't agree with your use of "no precedent" or the notion that it was a surprise to Netflix.
- nebalee 3y ago
  Why blame Germany? Blame the USA! After all, Broadcom is a US company.
speedgoose 3y ago
Can someone explain me how the Munich court can tell that to Netflix since software patents aren’t supposed to be patentable as the Article 52 of the European Patent Convention say. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_European_Patent_Convention https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_E...
- viktorcode 3y ago
  It isn’t a software patent. Compression method is patentable as an algorithm.
  - speedgoose 3y ago
    I would assume that such algorithms falls in the "schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers". https://www.epo.org/en/legal/epc/2020/a52.html https://www.epo.org/en/legal/epc/2020/a52.html
    - 4death4 3y ago
      No, it doesn’t. The ban against software patents is to prevent things like “X, but using software” from being patented. A good example is Sonos’ patent on controlling the volume of multiple speakers from an app. That’s just a dumb patent. Video encoding is very complex and non-obvious. Personally, I see the argument for patent protection.
      - speedgoose 3y ago
        I don't know. The sonos patent is stupid indeed, but I could see how it got accepted as it's about hardware speakers with some software control, which can be patented. But h265 looks purely algorithmic to me. Perhaps the patent is about using dedicated hardware decoders, but I'm not sure how that would impact Netflix. Netflix is software on the consumer side.
        3y ago
boudin 3y ago
It's interesting that Netflix uses HEVC and not VP9 for streaming, is it because of hardware support?
- clouddrover 3y ago
  Netflix streams many formats including AV1 and VP9. See the Netflix tech blog. - AV1 on Android: https://netflixtechblog.com/netflix-now-streaming-av1-on-android-d5264a515202 https://netflixtechblog.com/netflix-now-streaming-av1-on-and... - AV1 encoder work: https://netflixtechblog.com/svt-av1-an-open-source-av1-encoder-and-decoder-ad295d9b5ca2 https://netflixtechblog.com/svt-av1-an-open-source-av1-encod... - AV1 to TVs: https://netflixtechblog.com/bringing-av1-streaming-to-netflix-members-tvs-b7fc88e42320 https://netflixtechblog.com/bringing-av1-streaming-to-netfli... - VP9 in 2016: https://netflixtechblog.com/more-efficient-mobile-encodes-for-netflix-downloads-625d7b082909 https://netflixtechblog.com/more-efficient-mobile-encodes-fo...
nstart 3y ago
Can someone help me understand how big of a deal this is? Is this a global ban on using HEVC to stream UHD? What does Netflix use to stream 1080p? Assuming Netflix turned HEVC off tomorrow how would UHD streams happen on a random smart tv from almost a decade ago? Feeling very confused because I wasn’t even aware that this was something on the horizon and video codecs isn’t a topic I know anything meaningful about honestly.
- ksec 3y ago
  >Is this a global ban on using HEVC to stream UHD? Since this is in German Court I would assume it is for Germany only. >What does Netflix use to stream 1080p? Resolution has little to do with Codec. So you could have 1080P in both HEVC / H.265 and AVC / H.264. I believe Netflix provides both encoding in case one isn't supported. Although 4K may straightly be HEVC only. Not because AVC; the codec dont support 4K but more of a limitation of hardware decoder and encoding inefficiency. >Assuming Netflix turned HEVC off tomorrow how would UHD streams happen on a random smart tv from almost a decade ago? They may only be watching HD instead. Or Higher Quality of HD encoding with higher bitrate. Which is perfectly doable for Netflix due to their comparatively low amount of content. Certainly impossible for something like Youtube where you have a constant influx of new uploads.
  - mschuster91 3y ago
    > Since this is in German Court I would assume it is for Germany only. The article is lacking details on which Munich court made the decision... if it is the Federal Patent Court [1] or the European Unified Patent Court [2], it may very well be binding europe-wide. [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundespatentgericht_(Deutschland) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundespatentgericht_(Deutschla... [2] https://www.unified-patent-court.org/de/gericht/standorte https://www.unified-patent-court.org/de/gericht/standorte
- Tmpod 3y ago
  I'm not quite sure either, but AV1 seems to be the free format alternative to HEVC. However, it lacks the level of hardware support the latter has achieved, which is very much relevant for TVs and such, seeing as software decoding (of both HEVC and AV1) is expensive and may not be good enough in a lot of consumer devices out there.
NDizzle 3y ago
Isn't Netflix an American company? How would Volvo feel if a Kansas court told them to do something? Tell them to fuck off and try to enforce the ruling. Go on with life. Way too many power tripping judges these days.
- nhinck 3y ago
  Doesn't California impose strict emission regulations? Seems like a kind of bad analogy my man.
  - NDizzle 3y ago
    California, the state? What about a jury in Redding, CA? That's what we're looking at here. Does Munich make decisions for all of Germany?!
- swores 3y ago
  Volvo would feel like they could respect (or appeal) the Kansas ruling, or they can cease doing business in Kansas. Netflix has customers in Germany, so they don't get to ignore German legal rulings unless they want to stop having customers there.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
rob74 3y ago
Non-paywalled article (English translation from German): https://www-heise-de.translate.goog/news/Einstweilige-Verfuegung-Netflix-bekommt-Aerger-wegen-H-265-Streams-9317949.html?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://www-heise-de.translate.goog/news/Einstweilige-Verfue...
thinkharderdev 3y ago
Years ago I read the book "Radical Markets" by Glenn Weyl and Richard Posner. One of the ideas was a system of property tax system in which you pay property tax based on a property value which you get to declare (rather than some assessment by a third-party or government agency). The catch is that you are required to sell to anyone who offers your declared value. So a bit like a land value tax but fully general (can be applied to anything) and also sidestepping the issue of how to actually determine the the "value" in land value. While this would pose obvious practical problems as a system for property taxes, it seems like it might actually be a good system for patent taxes. Basically, you should have a to pay a patent tax to hold a patent. You can declare whatever value you want on the patent but have to also be willing to sell the patent at that declared value (or maybe just license it). I haven't thought it through really (just an idle thought) it certainly seems like it would basically destroy the business model of "patent trolls" and curb the practice of major tech players accumulating a huge portfolio of dubious patents as a cudgel they can threaten smaller competitors with.
- jurynulifcation 3y ago
  I don't see how it would destroy patent trolls. If anything it would just give them more runway, wouldn't it? They declare a high price they're happy to walk with and then continue trolling people with their patent. Corporations will pay the tax to maintain their patent and occasionally engage in minor amounts of corporate raiding against each other by "stealing" patents back and forth they otherwise maintain in perpetuity. Also, what if I build a business on my patent and someone purchases it away? Does the business go, too? Do I get a license? So on and so forth. This seems like an almost guaranteed worse system than we have already.
  - cgio 3y ago
    I am assuming the GP also implies taxation on the value claimed for the patent. Tangentially, I would also love the equivalent option the other way around, I.e. in property taxation, where the government decides the value of the property, to also be obliged to buy the property at that price if so asked by the owner, an option contract of sorts.
  - 3y ago
codemusings 3y ago
Wait. Is this why streaming Netflix has been so terribly laggy lately? This article dates back to the end of september. It's MP3 all over again.
- HumblyTossed 3y ago
  Are you in Germany?
DrThunder 3y ago
[dead]
Laaas 3y ago
Where it started (I believe): https://www.theregister.com/2020/03/17/broadcom_sues_netflix/ https://www.theregister.com/2020/03/17/broadcom_sues_netflix...
ksec 3y ago
A few more years to go. All H.264 patents would have expired. We will have a decent "patent free" video codec.
- ByThyGrace 3y ago
  How many, exactly? Also wasn't it this decade when MPEG-LA was supposed to be triggering some royalty collection clauses in their licensing of the H.264 codec? Is it happening?
  - lostmsu 3y ago
    According to wiki, H.264 was released on 17 August 2004. In US software patents last 20 years, so in 10 months the original version of it should become unencumbered.
Kim_Bruning 3y ago
This appears to be two different systemic failures stacked one atop the other. * According to the European Patent Convention, programs for computers should not be patentable. (But it turns out that the EPO has a novel interpretation whereby software can still be patented) * There's an H.265 patent pool that is supposed to cover all the patents essential to H. 265. (But somehow this patent wasn't in it)
- pgeorgi 3y ago
  > There's an H.265 patent pool that is supposed to cover all the patents essential to H. 265. Pool operators like to pretend that this is how it works (unless you ask pointed questions), but it already failed with the first popular codec patent pool, Thomson's MP3 pool - where devices were collected on trade fairs by customs because there were some additional patents from Sisvel that spontaneously appeared. Also note: pool operators don't guarantee that they provide customers with a full set of licenses. From the horse's mouth (https://www.via-la.com/licensing-2/hevc/hevc-faq/ https://www.via-la.com/licensing-2/hevc/hevc-faq/): "no assurance is or can be made that the License includes every essential patent"
brucethemoose2 3y ago
And yet another reason why no one big enough to sue would touch VVC with a 10,000 foot pole. Every once in awhile I see an evangelist point out the efficiency over AV1, which is true, but Netflix and others don't want anything to do with this patent minefield anymore. Microsoft is apparently even anxious about AV1, which is why they removed it from Edge for the moment.
shmerl 3y ago
Time to use AV1.
- HumblyTossed 3y ago
  If only it were as simple as that.
  - shmerl 3y ago
    Well, stupid cases like this speed it up make it simpler by removing other options.
mort96 3y ago
Obligatory "patents are terrible and should not exist". But given that they exist, that H.265 is known to be extremely patent encumbered, and there are alternatives (AV1) which are believed to be unencumbered, why do companies repeatedly choose to put themselves at risk by choosing H.265?
- tuetuopay 3y ago
  H.265 predates AV1 by a good margin. Also, when they switched, there were not really any efficient AV1 decoders (there is dav1d now in software), and they are still quite rare in hardware today. The power of H.265 came from existing decoders and the quick adoption of hardware decoders, which are important for phones and smart TVs. And your walmart craptop. I'd also bet they calculated the savings of H.265 for bandwidth and storage outweighed the cost of the lawsuit. Now they "just" gotta shell up for a license and call it a day. Or switch to AV1.
- acdha 3y ago
  AV1 is finally happening but you’re still talking about millions of devices which can’t handle it. A rough figure is 90% vs. 75% but that also doesn’t account for software playback or less efficient hardware implementations causing worse battery life. A couple years from now, I bet it’ll be more of a default choice. https://caniuse.com/hevc https://caniuse.com/hevc https://caniuse.com/av1 https://caniuse.com/av1
  - mort96 3y ago
    The 90% vs 75% figures ignore the fact that the 75% AV1 support is made up of 72% full support + 3% partial support, while the 90% H.265 support is made up of 21% full support + 69% partial support, so AV1 is doing surprisingly good! But yeah, that's fair. I overlooked how much older H.265 is than AV1.
jws 3y ago
It looks like the patent the court found infringed is EP2575366 https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2575366B1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2575366B1/en "Signaling of coding unit prediction and prediction unit partition mode for video coding" which ridiculously oversimplified to near uselessness is encoding video using a single binary tree to select from different possible encodings of P and B frames? I wonder if it is possible to encode HEVC without using this technique and it was just that Netflix's encoders used it, or is this integral to all HEVC. (Broadcom has had lots of discovery in the US version of this lawsuit, so they could know which products and devices Netflix uses to encode their video.) And just for a scope of the number of patents out there whose owners claim are relevant to HEVC… The MPEG-LA patent pool has about 10000 applicable patents for HEVC and licenses for $0.20 per device. ATT, Motorola, Nokia, and Microsoft refused to join MPEG-LA and made their own 500 patent pool covering HEVC and charge $2/device + 0.5% of revenue from streaming. Then there are the wildcard gamblers like Broadcom - not a pool member and swooping in with patents designed to be infringed by HEVC implementors which even indicate in the patent that the inventors were aware of the internals of the as yet unreleased HEVC standard.
- ksec 3y ago
  >ATT, Motorola, Nokia, and Microsoft refused to join MPEG-LA and made their own 500 patent pool covering HEVC and charge $2/device + 0.5% of revenue from streaming. Not true. You are referring to early HEVC Advance terms purposed which never happened. >I wonder if it is possible to encode HEVC without using this technique and it was just that Netflix's encoders used it, Probably not given how board that patent seems to imply. To the point I would guess even AV1 may infringe on it.
westurner 3y ago
I support open source alternatives to H.265, which is fairly advantageous. I don't think governments are good at regulating technical standards for industry. And so this is a wash.
- PokemonNoGo 3y ago
  This isn't the German government trying to regulate technical standards of an industry. This is a German court upholding a patent. Which you can of course argue all you want around but I failed to see the relevancy of your comment here.
  - westurner 3y ago
    Perhaps it's out of context then.

197 points by clouddrover 3y ago

Curious to know how many days/weeks it’ll take Netflix to transcode all their 4K shows from 265 4K to 264 4K. I mean, it’s gotta be more than 10 hours.

ddorian43 3y ago
They should have them by default for clients that don't support x265.

menacingly 3y ago

I can't think of anything to say that doesn't sound like a free and unencumbered software bumper sticker. But... like... c'mon.

AndrewKemendo 3y ago

Remember when patents were considered this grand thing? That, should you be so lucky to create some great idea and then patent it, the world would be better and you’d be rewarded for your genius! I am 1st or second author on two granted patents. I have received neither any compensation nor any benefit for it. I don’t even get to do anything with them because they are property of another company. Patents don’t even appear to be serving their intended purpose, I mean Broadcom odd just blocking the use, meaning Netflix subscribers just got a worse service now when Netflix could easily just pay to license like they should have. Ridiculous

rubyfan 3y ago
Like most government systems these days corporate interests have turned it into a moat.
spacebanana7 3y ago
Trademarks and copyright are enough to compensate innovators. The only possible exception I can think where patents are distinctly useful is Pharma, and even there it's not exactly a closed case. In aerospace, software and electrical engineering; there are many examples of consumer harm from patents and very few, if any, examples where patents enabled innovators to do useful things which were otherwise economically unfeasible.
- jwestbury 3y ago
  The purpose of patents is to encourage disclosure. By disclosing how something is accomplished, a business is rewarded with exclusive use of their method for a limited period. I think the argument to be made in many fields is that patent law does not necessarily function correctly when technology advances so quickly.
  - coldpie 3y ago
    What is the value in that disclosure? No software developer has ever looked at a patent for inspiration or to learn how something works.
    - eviks 3y ago
      Easier/faster replication/implementation/new invention etc is the value. There are other people besides software developers that can look at a patent for inspiration and hire software developers to implement it
      - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
        Maybe this happens somewhere in some industry I'm not aware of? There are many different kinds of documents I use to help me write code, but looking at even just a few (software) patents, they never seemed like they were written in a way that was useful to me?
      - nitwit005 3y ago
        The patents are deliberately obfuscated these days, which makes this fairly difficult to actually do.
thinkingtoilet 3y ago
>I mean Netflix subscribers just got a worse service now. Your first points have merit but this is an odd point. Of course Netflix customers will get worse service. If you start a business and succeed by illegally using someone else's patent then you (and your customers) should suffer from a legal decision.
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  The whole point would be that Netflix would license the patents from Broadcom. Instead either Broadcom is blocking them to prevent their growth, or Netflix is trying to be greedy. Either way, nowhere here are patents helping or protecting citizens/consumers
  - sigzero 3y ago
    > Either way, nowhere here are patents helping or protecting citizens/consumers Patents are for not for helping or protecting citizens/consumers. Patents are solely for protecting intellectual property.
  - gosub100 3y ago
    My (total guess) is that Broadcom is trying to be greedy, probably asking for a ridiculous sum that would make Netflix' use unprofitable.
    - freejazz 3y ago
      Or maybe netflix is so cheap and run on the margins, that they can't afford to license the technology, which is why they tried using it for free...
      - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
        There's supposed to be an H.265 patent pool at the very least.
        3y ago
mhb 3y ago
You're conflating two issues. Should the cashiers at supermarkets be upset that they don't get a share of the profit from every canned soup sale?
- skavi 3y ago
  I think it is not so crazy an opinion that surplus value is unfairly distributed.
  - bad_user 3y ago
    The cashiers at the supermarket are paid a wage they agreed on when they were hired. There's nothing more fair than supply and demand.
    - earthling8118 3y ago
      The number may be what they agreed upon but the value definitely doesn't remain stable.
      - bad_user 3y ago
        Right. And the workers can renegotiate, or are free to leave.
    - pgeorgi 3y ago
      Supply and demand is fair, if and only if both sides are entirely free to walk away from the deal. Depending on the labor market situation this isn't necessarily a given when the alternative is starvation.
      - bad_user 3y ago
        In the West, the alternative is seldom starvation. Given the very low rate of unemployment, despite the post-pandemic climate, it's pretty obvious that people still have choice when seeking employment. And there is always choice, which includes going back to school or moving to a different city. Heck, given the Internet, you can get education for free (until the ad-blockers ruin everything by normalizing paywalls). People forget, or never learned, what involuntary servitude or starvation was actually like, or what actually happened when the hammer and sickle was adopted as a state religion. And related to the parent, in the words of Thomas Sowell, the minimum wage is always zero. Or in other words, people should be glad that the demand for cashiers still exists, until the job gets fully automated. I find it funny, yet unsettling, that I have to state the obvious on HN of all places.
mrtksn 3y ago
> I have received neither any compensation nor any benefit for it Is this because your invention wasn't commercially exploited or because your invention wasn't protected by the patents(because of reasons)? Correct me if I'm wrong but In this particular case it appears that the patents of Broadcom worked as intended and they will be compensated if their invention is used. A good example of actually investing in inventing something, then make money with it thanks to enforcement of patents. This doesn't appear to be a patent troll case but actual technology with actual use case in an actual multi billion dollar corporation and the other corporation who invented the technology demands to be compensated for the use their tech in this multi billion dolar trade.
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  But they aren’t being compensated, they are just blocking the use in those markets. Mine are heavily cited: https://patents.justia.com/inventor/andrew-kemendo https://patents.justia.com/inventor/andrew-kemendo
  - mrtksn 3y ago
    I don't think this is the correct description of the situation. Is there any indication that if Netflix pays a fair amount, Broadcom will still not let Netflix use the tech to deliver its services? The court order seems like an implementation detail for the enforcement of the patent. The court orders the cessation of the illegal activity, it's up to the relevant parties to come to an agreement and continue doing the same thing but this time legally.
    - freedomben 3y ago
      Indeed, the embedded LinkedIn post from a Netflix "technologist" in TFA seems to imply that paying for it is a possibility if not a likely outcome.
  - tmikaeld 3y ago
    Interesting patent, the "Near Eye Wavefront Emulating Display". > "..tapered optical waveguide light emitting layer and piezoelectric-driven decentered microlens array" Sounds similar to "Magic Leap Fiber Scanning Display" ?
foobarian 3y ago
> Patents don’t even appear to be serving their intended purpose, I mean Netflix subscribers just got a worse service now. Think longer term. Without patents, maybe there would be no H.265 to use in the first place. So consumers win after all.
- neffy 3y ago
  Or perhaps without patents there wouldn't be false monopolisation preventing better standards being contributed by people who can't afford expensive lawyers.
- thomastjeffery 3y ago
  AV1 was literally created to be patent-free. So yes, please continue to threaten me with a good time.
  - throw0101c 3y ago
    > AV1 was literally created to be patent-free. AV1 was created to be license-fee-free. There are lots of patents in AV1, it's just that their holders don't ask for money: > Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Licensor, on behalf of itself and successors in interest and assigns, grants Licensee a non-sublicensable, perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as expressly stated in this License) patent license to its Necessary Claims to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import or distribute any Implementation. * https://aomedia.org/license/patent-license/ https://aomedia.org/license/patent-license/
    - thomastjeffery 3y ago
      Right, that's the method they used to liberate AV1 from patent monopolies.
    - tensor 3y ago
      Because if they didn't patent it then some other asshole could, and deny them rights to their own invention, because the patent system is stupid.
vadiml 3y ago
I don't understand really why these patents are granted. Software is math and math formulas are not patentable. The patent (and copyrights) system today is actually subverted by greedy players and instead of promoting progress and sciences is serving to enrich the middlemen by artificially SLOWING the progress.
- louthy 3y ago
  Saying “software is math” is akin to saying “books are just letters”; the building blocks of software is not what people want to protect, it’s the idea and the effort to invent. Whether software should be patentable or not is obviously open for discussion, but saying it’s just math isn’t really enough of an argument.
  - no_wizard 3y ago
    The best of the mainstream arguments against software patents has always been: What does Intellectual Property and Copyright not cover that patents do when it comes to software? I only have a few friends I trust on such a topic, and my understanding is between IP and Copyright laws from them (ones a public policy researcher, the other a lawyer), it would be more than sufficient for protecting companies work and patents were lobbied only because their enforcement is more heavy handed, IE, it can stifle competition under the guise of "patent infringement"
    - louthy 3y ago
      > The best of the mainstream arguments against software patents has always been: What does Intellectual Property and Copyright not cover that patents do when it comes to software? Instinctively, that’s where I think it should be, agreed.
    - jcranmer 3y ago
      > What does Intellectual Property and Copyright not cover that patents do when it comes to software? Copyright cannot and does not prevent someone from clean-room engineering a replacement for your software. Patents can do that. (Whether or not they should is a different question, but that's not what you asked). FWIW, patents are one of the forms of intellectual property.
skywhopper 3y ago
I mean, I doubt Broadcom is “blocking” the use of this algorithm, they are just demanding payment. That said, software patents are a huge drag on innovation, which is the opposite of the intent of the patent system, and thus they should be disallowed.
stainablesteel 3y ago
the spirit of the original purpose of patents is being abused definitely
donatj 3y ago
My friend has a patent that made his company millions. He got a plaque and a pat on the back. He still got cussed out when he paid for his $100 steel toe boots (required for the job) with the company card. He’s an engineer in heavy machinery.
thaumasiotes 3y ago
> Patents don’t even appear to be serving their intended purpose The intended purpose of patents is well documented: they are supposed to result in technology being published rather than being kept secret. It isn't clear why a legal patent system is viewed as compatible with a legal trade secrets regime.
freejazz 3y ago
Sorry, you thought you'd be rich just because you are named on two patents? You don't think it matters what the patents regards nor how useful they are to others? It seems like you don't even own the patents... I'm struggling to understand the point of your "criticism"
- Kim_Bruning 3y ago
  In the modern world, inventors often don't own the patents to their own inventions. I'd be very interested to hear from people who actually used a software patent in a useful manner. (Ie. Could they actually write a successful implementation, based on the patent text)
  - freejazz 3y ago
    That's not true at all. I've litigated patents owned by their inventors. It is true that small-time inventors often have to sell them because they cannot afford to enforce their own patents due to the high costs of litigating against a much larger commercial entity. >In the modern world, the inventors often don't own the patents to their own inventions. Right but that's most likely because of his employer... so it seems entirely besides the point of whatever principle you are tilting at.
    - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
      Oh, that's interesting! Very different from my own personal experience in life, and the experience of people I've worked with, as you may have gathered. I'm definitely interested in learning about an opposite experience. Care to share? Were these "Software" patents? Hardware patents? Gene Patents? Which country? Do you have references to the patents and court cases?
      - freejazz 3y ago
        What would you like to know? I'm not going to identify the patents nor their owners, as they never asked to be involved in this conversation, but I'm happy to share my own personal experiences. The patents were for a distributed networking system, that included hardware components, to be used in a particular industry. This is in the US. We defeated an Alice motion, with the court declaring that our patents were valid. Ultimately, we lost on a jury verdict. I see many of your posts and find them disagreeable. While I am not doubting your personal experiences, you seem to place them above the very clear incentive structures that exist today, which force patent owners to have to sell their patents because they cannot afford to enforce them against the likes of Netflix or Broadcom or Google. The big companies are free to infringe on such patents. That's why I find it disappointing when I see people express dismay over the fact that a patent owner would sell their interests to a non-practicing-entity that will attempt to license and enforce the patent. Such a patent owner has no little to capitalize from their invention otherwise. In the event they do not sell, then they absolutely need a litigation financier in order to satisfy the costs of enforcement ($1m-$2m) via litigation. For the most part, the system is stacked in favor of the large companies, so I find it very bizarre to repeatedly see comments that come out agains the rights and interests of such inventors.
_ugfj 3y ago
I know at least one patent author for whom the system worked exactly as designed. That being my uncle. Imagine the literal bearded tinkerer in his garage inventing a (much) better sprinkler head. What's the next step? Without the patent system, I guess raise money, build a factory and establish yourself in the market? With the patent system, he sold it to one of the largest manufacturers and today AFAIK about a third of sprinkler heads sold in the US are his invention. He was paid handsomely for the decade plus of tinkering, the manufacturer got a great invention without spending a decade on R&D. Win all around. Notably this was a physical object and not maths.
- thfuran 3y ago
  >Notably this was a physical object and not maths Why is that notable?
  - s_dev 3y ago
    You're not supposed to be able to patent 'Mathematics' or 'Nature' because these phenomena are 'discovered' and not 'invented'. You can patent a device that exploits a natural phenomena but not the phenomena itself.
    - thfuran 3y ago
      Unless an algorithm is observed in nature, I don't really see how it makes any more sense to claim it's a natural phenomenon than it would to make the claim of a machine.
    - Max_aaa 3y ago
      Gortex?
  - ooterness 3y ago
    There are a lot of bad software patents. Many follow the formula "abstract mathematical concept, but now it's on a computer". For a long time, that's all that was required.
nbadg 3y ago
I agree, but: > Patents don’t even appear to be serving their intended purpose I think there's a lot of misunderstanding of what their intended purpose actually is. The point of patents is to foster innovation -- not, as many think, to provide a financial benefit for innovation. Those may sound similar, but there are two very important differences: one, it assumes that financial benefit automatically promotes innovative things, and two, it assumes that financial benefit is the only motivation behind creating the patent system. The former is a really complicated topic, and I'm not sure how much reputable, peer-reviewed research has gone into evaluating it. But the idea that financial incentives are the reason why the patent system was created is simply not accurate. The patent system was created as a compromise: when you invent something, a patent gives you exclusive rights over it, yes. But in exchange, critically, you must publish, in detail, the exact workings of the invention. In other words, the public good intended by creating the patent system was the free exchange of ideas, even if your ability to actually use those ideas was limited by licensing fees. Today, we live in a world where (I think it's pretty clear) patents are not the most effective tool available to promote the free exchange of ideas. I mean, you can learn a whole lot more about how something works by turning to youtube than by reading its patents. So half of the bargain is gone, irrelevant. But we've gotten so used to them that I haven't heard any real, substantive, serious discussion in political circles about what that means for the patent system as a whole.
- mhb 3y ago
  The mechanism of freely exchanging the ideas is irrelevant. The exchange refers to providing the ideas to other people whether it's by stone tablet or internet.

Alifatisk 3y ago

The sticky ads allocated roughly 75% of my screen, the text was barely visible. Since when was this even considered as a properly designed website?

haunter 3y ago
Why don't you use an adblocker?
- mattsan 3y ago
  While I do agree with you and recommend everyone uses them, I still don't believe this is acceptable for websites and that we are basically forced to use adblockers if we don't want migraines
  - Alifatisk 3y ago
    For real, we should start pointing fingers at the root cause.
- Alifatisk 3y ago
  I'm using the Hack app on iOS, it uses the integrated browser which does not block ads.
gdevenyi 3y ago
You saw what they wanted you to see. NOTABUG, working as intended.
PenguinCoder 3y ago
It's not acceptable and part of the reason I close many articles otherwise. Have you seen the crap Medium does?
- travoc 3y ago
  I have not, because I use Brave on PC and AdGuard on iOS like a rational human.

varbhat 3y ago

Doesn't Netflix use AV1 exclusively to stream it's contents? Even if it's not using it, I think that this news will be a boon to AV1 usage adoption as i hope that HEVC will be replaced with AV1 in Netflix.

capableweb 3y ago
Well, I guess apparently not? Otherwise how would the court end up deciding they have to stop using HEVC, if they're not using it?
newsclues 3y ago
I don't think all devices support AV1 decode, so unlikely.
- vetinari 3y ago
  All devices do not have to support AV1 decode. Send the AV1 stream to AV1-capable, fallback to AVC. Previously, there could be AV1 > HEVC > AVC priorities set up, after this only AV1 > AVC.
nicolaslem 3y ago
AV1 hardware decoding is still pretty rare, it seems unlikely that the cheap SOCs in smart TVs and the like are able to software decode AV1 at high resolutions.
- vetinari 3y ago
  Nowadays its pretty common, but not everyone has relatively recent devices.
  - deaddodo 3y ago
    Nowadays = this + last generation on nVidia, Intel and AMD GPUs? It's still fairly uncommon on ARM, MIPS, etc GPUs being used in low-cost cores for TVs and set top boxes. Mali being the biggest.

Deukhoofd 3y ago

We ought to just stop using HEVC collectively, the bizarre licensing scheme they've set up is just not worth it, and AV1 allows for better compression anyway.

grishka 3y ago
HEVC has a very wide support for hardware acceleration while AV1 barely has any, especially for encoding. That's important, especially on battery-powered devices.
- Diti 3y ago
  Following that rationale, why haven’t we kept using H.264, when H.265 started existing?
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    We absolutely did. H.265 took many years to gain traction, precisely because h.264 hardware decoding was widespread but h.265 hardware decoding wasn't. Codecs simply don't take off in a big way until the hardware decoding becomes widespread. And video sites will maintain dual streams for many years, to continue supporting older hardware.
  - ksec 3y ago
    >Following that rationale, why haven’t we kept using H.264, when H.265 started existing? If my memory are correct at the end of 2020 90%+ of all online video were still on H.264. We are still pretty much H.264 only simply because it is good enough for most things.
  - JamesSwift 3y ago
    _everyone_ uses 264 as the baseline fallback because every device under the sun supports it.
- Deukhoofd 3y ago
  That very much depends. In browsers, the interface most users use nowadays, that is the complete opposite, where HEVC is not widely supported while AV1 is.

leoh 3y ago

Folks that now own VMWare, ladies and gentlemen.

zx8080 3y ago
I rarely saw their (vmware) products in the recent 5 years. So maybe, who cares?
- freedomben 3y ago
  You obviously don't work in the enterprise space then. They are a major, probably the most major player in hypervisors.
  - tiberious726 3y ago
    And with RHEV dead, there aren't even any serious alternatives

mixedmath 3y ago

I didn't understand from the title. But it turns out that Broadcom has pantented "high efficiency video coding" HEVC (which I have seen before as H.265). Netflix uses HEVC to stream 4K video. Broadcom sued to stop Netflix from infringing on their patent. Presumably now Netflix will have to pay Broadcom some amount to stream over HEVC.

capableweb 3y ago
> Presumably now Netflix will have to pay Broadcom some amount to stream over HEVC. Presumably, Netflix will in the short-term pay X amount for this but work probably started yesterday or earlier to replace it with something that doesn't have fees to use.
- mikerybka 3y ago
  They've been working with Intel on AV1 hardware since 2019. [1] https://research.netflix.com/publication/AV1%20at%20Netflix https://research.netflix.com/publication/AV1%20at%20Netflix
  - cubefox 3y ago
    Unfortunately AV1 hardware acceleration support was really slow. Apple only just adopted it in their new SoCs. Qualcomm didn't support it until recently either. It's probably still years till the hardware support is anywhere close to H.265, or even H.264 (the currently most common format). It's possible to decode AV1 in software, but the computation requirements are quite high.
    - lern_too_spel 3y ago
      HEVC is from the VP9 generation of codecs. Qualcomm has supported VP9 decoding since 2016 (Snapdragon 820). Unfortunately, no Apple device has ever supported hardware accelerated VP9 decode, so HEVC is the only UHD option on those devices.
    - mort96 3y ago

beeboobaa 3y ago

Thank you Germany for forcing Netflix, and all of their users, to waste more electricity and exarcabate global warming.

pelasaco 3y ago
don't say it loud, otherwise people will try to glue themselves on your TV
freejazz 3y ago
I'm sorry, but why is it that Netflix cannot license technology that it uses? It seems absurd to blame Germany for Netflix's decision to use this technology without licensing it...
- jauntywundrkind 3y ago
  The claim is not from the mpeg-la patent pool that is supposed to cover h265/hevc. It's an outside claim. Has anyone paid Broadcom for this patent claim yet? Who? Where has this claim been made before? This is part of what's so vicious & ugly about patents. Try as you might to avoid patents, there is a multi-decade window where some giant legion of lawyers can jump out of the bushes & make huge claims against you. Business as usual can be severely disrupted at the drip of a hat to some claim no one saw coming, with no precedent.
  - freejazz 3y ago
    Well, I don't agree that it's something no one saw coming. Netflix has its own giant legion of lawyers it pays to review patents and manage Netflix's liabilities in that regard. Patents are all publicly disclosed, so I don't agree with your use of "no precedent" or the notion that it was a surprise to Netflix.
nebalee 3y ago
Why blame Germany? Blame the USA! After all, Broadcom is a US company.

speedgoose 3y ago

Can someone explain me how the Munich court can tell that to Netflix since software patents aren’t supposed to be patentable as the Article 52 of the European Patent Convention say. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_European_Patent_Convention https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_E...

viktorcode 3y ago
It isn’t a software patent. Compression method is patentable as an algorithm.
- speedgoose 3y ago
  I would assume that such algorithms falls in the "schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers". https://www.epo.org/en/legal/epc/2020/a52.html https://www.epo.org/en/legal/epc/2020/a52.html
  - 4death4 3y ago
    No, it doesn’t. The ban against software patents is to prevent things like “X, but using software” from being patented. A good example is Sonos’ patent on controlling the volume of multiple speakers from an app. That’s just a dumb patent. Video encoding is very complex and non-obvious. Personally, I see the argument for patent protection.
    - speedgoose 3y ago
      I don't know. The sonos patent is stupid indeed, but I could see how it got accepted as it's about hardware speakers with some software control, which can be patented. But h265 looks purely algorithmic to me. Perhaps the patent is about using dedicated hardware decoders, but I'm not sure how that would impact Netflix. Netflix is software on the consumer side.
      - 3y ago

boudin 3y ago

It's interesting that Netflix uses HEVC and not VP9 for streaming, is it because of hardware support?

clouddrover 3y ago
Netflix streams many formats including AV1 and VP9. See the Netflix tech blog. - AV1 on Android: https://netflixtechblog.com/netflix-now-streaming-av1-on-android-d5264a515202 https://netflixtechblog.com/netflix-now-streaming-av1-on-and... - AV1 encoder work: https://netflixtechblog.com/svt-av1-an-open-source-av1-encoder-and-decoder-ad295d9b5ca2 https://netflixtechblog.com/svt-av1-an-open-source-av1-encod... - AV1 to TVs: https://netflixtechblog.com/bringing-av1-streaming-to-netflix-members-tvs-b7fc88e42320 https://netflixtechblog.com/bringing-av1-streaming-to-netfli... - VP9 in 2016: https://netflixtechblog.com/more-efficient-mobile-encodes-for-netflix-downloads-625d7b082909 https://netflixtechblog.com/more-efficient-mobile-encodes-fo...

nstart 3y ago

Can someone help me understand how big of a deal this is? Is this a global ban on using HEVC to stream UHD? What does Netflix use to stream 1080p? Assuming Netflix turned HEVC off tomorrow how would UHD streams happen on a random smart tv from almost a decade ago? Feeling very confused because I wasn’t even aware that this was something on the horizon and video codecs isn’t a topic I know anything meaningful about honestly.

ksec 3y ago
>Is this a global ban on using HEVC to stream UHD? Since this is in German Court I would assume it is for Germany only. >What does Netflix use to stream 1080p? Resolution has little to do with Codec. So you could have 1080P in both HEVC / H.265 and AVC / H.264. I believe Netflix provides both encoding in case one isn't supported. Although 4K may straightly be HEVC only. Not because AVC; the codec dont support 4K but more of a limitation of hardware decoder and encoding inefficiency. >Assuming Netflix turned HEVC off tomorrow how would UHD streams happen on a random smart tv from almost a decade ago? They may only be watching HD instead. Or Higher Quality of HD encoding with higher bitrate. Which is perfectly doable for Netflix due to their comparatively low amount of content. Certainly impossible for something like Youtube where you have a constant influx of new uploads.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  > Since this is in German Court I would assume it is for Germany only. The article is lacking details on which Munich court made the decision... if it is the Federal Patent Court [1] or the European Unified Patent Court [2], it may very well be binding europe-wide. [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundespatentgericht_(Deutschland) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundespatentgericht_(Deutschla... [2] https://www.unified-patent-court.org/de/gericht/standorte https://www.unified-patent-court.org/de/gericht/standorte
Tmpod 3y ago
I'm not quite sure either, but AV1 seems to be the free format alternative to HEVC. However, it lacks the level of hardware support the latter has achieved, which is very much relevant for TVs and such, seeing as software decoding (of both HEVC and AV1) is expensive and may not be good enough in a lot of consumer devices out there.

NDizzle 3y ago

Isn't Netflix an American company? How would Volvo feel if a Kansas court told them to do something? Tell them to fuck off and try to enforce the ruling. Go on with life. Way too many power tripping judges these days.

nhinck 3y ago
Doesn't California impose strict emission regulations? Seems like a kind of bad analogy my man.
- NDizzle 3y ago
  California, the state? What about a jury in Redding, CA? That's what we're looking at here. Does Munich make decisions for all of Germany?!
swores 3y ago
Volvo would feel like they could respect (or appeal) the Kansas ruling, or they can cease doing business in Kansas. Netflix has customers in Germany, so they don't get to ignore German legal rulings unless they want to stop having customers there.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

rob74 3y ago

Non-paywalled article (English translation from German): https://www-heise-de.translate.goog/news/Einstweilige-Verfuegung-Netflix-bekommt-Aerger-wegen-H-265-Streams-9317949.html?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://www-heise-de.translate.goog/news/Einstweilige-Verfue...

thinkharderdev 3y ago

Years ago I read the book "Radical Markets" by Glenn Weyl and Richard Posner. One of the ideas was a system of property tax system in which you pay property tax based on a property value which you get to declare (rather than some assessment by a third-party or government agency). The catch is that you are required to sell to anyone who offers your declared value. So a bit like a land value tax but fully general (can be applied to anything) and also sidestepping the issue of how to actually determine the the "value" in land value. While this would pose obvious practical problems as a system for property taxes, it seems like it might actually be a good system for patent taxes. Basically, you should have a to pay a patent tax to hold a patent. You can declare whatever value you want on the patent but have to also be willing to sell the patent at that declared value (or maybe just license it). I haven't thought it through really (just an idle thought) it certainly seems like it would basically destroy the business model of "patent trolls" and curb the practice of major tech players accumulating a huge portfolio of dubious patents as a cudgel they can threaten smaller competitors with.

jurynulifcation 3y ago
I don't see how it would destroy patent trolls. If anything it would just give them more runway, wouldn't it? They declare a high price they're happy to walk with and then continue trolling people with their patent. Corporations will pay the tax to maintain their patent and occasionally engage in minor amounts of corporate raiding against each other by "stealing" patents back and forth they otherwise maintain in perpetuity. Also, what if I build a business on my patent and someone purchases it away? Does the business go, too? Do I get a license? So on and so forth. This seems like an almost guaranteed worse system than we have already.
- cgio 3y ago
  I am assuming the GP also implies taxation on the value claimed for the patent. Tangentially, I would also love the equivalent option the other way around, I.e. in property taxation, where the government decides the value of the property, to also be obliged to buy the property at that price if so asked by the owner, an option contract of sorts.
- 3y ago

codemusings 3y ago

Wait. Is this why streaming Netflix has been so terribly laggy lately? This article dates back to the end of september. It's MP3 all over again.

HumblyTossed 3y ago
Are you in Germany?

DrThunder 3y ago

[dead]

Laaas 3y ago

Where it started (I believe): https://www.theregister.com/2020/03/17/broadcom_sues_netflix/ https://www.theregister.com/2020/03/17/broadcom_sues_netflix...

ksec 3y ago

A few more years to go. All H.264 patents would have expired. We will have a decent "patent free" video codec.

ByThyGrace 3y ago
How many, exactly? Also wasn't it this decade when MPEG-LA was supposed to be triggering some royalty collection clauses in their licensing of the H.264 codec? Is it happening?
- lostmsu 3y ago
  According to wiki, H.264 was released on 17 August 2004. In US software patents last 20 years, so in 10 months the original version of it should become unencumbered.

Kim_Bruning 3y ago

This appears to be two different systemic failures stacked one atop the other. * According to the European Patent Convention, programs for computers should not be patentable. (But it turns out that the EPO has a novel interpretation whereby software can still be patented) * There's an H.265 patent pool that is supposed to cover all the patents essential to H. 265. (But somehow this patent wasn't in it)

pgeorgi 3y ago
> There's an H.265 patent pool that is supposed to cover all the patents essential to H. 265. Pool operators like to pretend that this is how it works (unless you ask pointed questions), but it already failed with the first popular codec patent pool, Thomson's MP3 pool - where devices were collected on trade fairs by customs because there were some additional patents from Sisvel that spontaneously appeared. Also note: pool operators don't guarantee that they provide customers with a full set of licenses. From the horse's mouth (https://www.via-la.com/licensing-2/hevc/hevc-faq/ https://www.via-la.com/licensing-2/hevc/hevc-faq/): "no assurance is or can be made that the License includes every essential patent"

brucethemoose2 3y ago

And yet another reason why no one big enough to sue would touch VVC with a 10,000 foot pole. Every once in awhile I see an evangelist point out the efficiency over AV1, which is true, but Netflix and others don't want anything to do with this patent minefield anymore. Microsoft is apparently even anxious about AV1, which is why they removed it from Edge for the moment.

shmerl 3y ago

Time to use AV1.

HumblyTossed 3y ago
If only it were as simple as that.
- shmerl 3y ago
  Well, stupid cases like this speed it up make it simpler by removing other options.

mort96 3y ago

Obligatory "patents are terrible and should not exist". But given that they exist, that H.265 is known to be extremely patent encumbered, and there are alternatives (AV1) which are believed to be unencumbered, why do companies repeatedly choose to put themselves at risk by choosing H.265?

tuetuopay 3y ago
H.265 predates AV1 by a good margin. Also, when they switched, there were not really any efficient AV1 decoders (there is dav1d now in software), and they are still quite rare in hardware today. The power of H.265 came from existing decoders and the quick adoption of hardware decoders, which are important for phones and smart TVs. And your walmart craptop. I'd also bet they calculated the savings of H.265 for bandwidth and storage outweighed the cost of the lawsuit. Now they "just" gotta shell up for a license and call it a day. Or switch to AV1.
acdha 3y ago
AV1 is finally happening but you’re still talking about millions of devices which can’t handle it. A rough figure is 90% vs. 75% but that also doesn’t account for software playback or less efficient hardware implementations causing worse battery life. A couple years from now, I bet it’ll be more of a default choice. https://caniuse.com/hevc https://caniuse.com/hevc https://caniuse.com/av1 https://caniuse.com/av1
- mort96 3y ago
  The 90% vs 75% figures ignore the fact that the 75% AV1 support is made up of 72% full support + 3% partial support, while the 90% H.265 support is made up of 21% full support + 69% partial support, so AV1 is doing surprisingly good! But yeah, that's fair. I overlooked how much older H.265 is than AV1.

jws 3y ago

It looks like the patent the court found infringed is EP2575366 https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2575366B1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2575366B1/en "Signaling of coding unit prediction and prediction unit partition mode for video coding" which ridiculously oversimplified to near uselessness is encoding video using a single binary tree to select from different possible encodings of P and B frames? I wonder if it is possible to encode HEVC without using this technique and it was just that Netflix's encoders used it, or is this integral to all HEVC. (Broadcom has had lots of discovery in the US version of this lawsuit, so they could know which products and devices Netflix uses to encode their video.) And just for a scope of the number of patents out there whose owners claim are relevant to HEVC… The MPEG-LA patent pool has about 10000 applicable patents for HEVC and licenses for $0.20 per device. ATT, Motorola, Nokia, and Microsoft refused to join MPEG-LA and made their own 500 patent pool covering HEVC and charge $2/device + 0.5% of revenue from streaming. Then there are the wildcard gamblers like Broadcom - not a pool member and swooping in with patents designed to be infringed by HEVC implementors which even indicate in the patent that the inventors were aware of the internals of the as yet unreleased HEVC standard.

ksec 3y ago
>ATT, Motorola, Nokia, and Microsoft refused to join MPEG-LA and made their own 500 patent pool covering HEVC and charge $2/device + 0.5% of revenue from streaming. Not true. You are referring to early HEVC Advance terms purposed which never happened. >I wonder if it is possible to encode HEVC without using this technique and it was just that Netflix's encoders used it, Probably not given how board that patent seems to imply. To the point I would guess even AV1 may infringe on it.

westurner 3y ago

I support open source alternatives to H.265, which is fairly advantageous. I don't think governments are good at regulating technical standards for industry. And so this is a wash.

PokemonNoGo 3y ago
This isn't the German government trying to regulate technical standards of an industry. This is a German court upholding a patent. Which you can of course argue all you want around but I failed to see the relevancy of your comment here.
- westurner 3y ago
  Perhaps it's out of context then.