3 ms·

No codec (or any other technical development, really - edit: except for 20+ years old stuff, and only if you don't add any, even "obvious" improvements) is know

• dogma1138 3y ago
  No one said that Opus is the only one suffering from licensing ambiguity, but comparing it to say AptX and its variants which do have a clear one stop shop for licensing (Qualcomm) it’s a much riskier venture especially when it comes to hardware.
  • tux3 3y ago
    Making a patent troll is just a matter of putting up a press release and a web page. I could claim to have a long list of patents against AptX. Anyone could. Of course I'm not willing to disclose the list of patents at this time, but customers looking to be extorted may contact me privately.
    • rockdoe 3y ago
      FhG and Dolby did eventually put up a list of patents you are licensing from them. It makes for some funny reading if you're familiar with the field. (This should not be construed as legal advice as to the validity of the pool)
    • bdowling 3y ago
      At least in the U.S., anyone can look up all the patents a person/entity owns. So, your fraud wouldn’t get very far. https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html#/patent/search https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html#/patent/searc...
      • pgeorgi 3y ago
        "I represent the holders of the patents in question" is simple enough. I wonder if it's fraud, if all you're putting out is an unverifiable claim on the net. The pool operators do that all the time.
        • bdowling 3y ago
          Someone who has no basis to bring a patent infringement claim selling a settlement of such a claim to an alleged infringer is clearly fraud. It’s like someone selling a deed to land they don’t own, or leasing a property they don’t own to a tenant.
          • pgeorgi 3y ago
            The point isn't to sell a settlement. It's to publish "oh, we're totally serious that there are patents in our control. We won't tell you which ones, we don't tell you what we want from you. If you're interested, reach out to us." Few people will even bother to try, and if so, you keep them at a distance with some random bullshit (communication can break down _sooo_ easily), but it certainly poisons the well by adding a layer of FUD to the tech you're targeting with your claims. Standard fare of patent pool operators, and it's high time to reciprocate.
  • pgeorgi 3y ago
    A drive-by patent owner can show up on anything, and if they don't want to license to you, your entire product is bust. Even if it's AptX and Qualcomm issues you a license in exchange for money. I wouldn't even bet on being able to claw back these license costs after being ordered to destroy your AptX-equipped product after it ran into somebody else's patent. The risk that this happens is _exactly_ the same for Opus or AptX.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• xoa 3y ago
  FWIW, submarine patents are long dead, so it is possible to feel assured that old enough stuff is patent free. Of course that denies a lot of important improvements, but due to diminishing returns and the ramp of tech development it's still ever more significant. A lot of key stuff is going to lose monopoly lock this decade.
  • pgeorgi 3y ago
    You're right. I could still amend the post, so I added the 20+ years caveat. Thanks!