716
Firm quietly boosts H.264 streaming license fees from $100,000 up to staggering $4.5 million — backbone codec of the internet gets meteoric increase, AVC hikes follow disastrous H.265 licensing increa (www.tomshardware.com)
submitted 7 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
132 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 7 months ago (7 children)

Oh look just as the AV1 consortium is also deciding to do shakedowns. It's a good thing the open source community have a history of building functional and well performing codecs, especially when it comes to media formats.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 34 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Maybe in misunderstanding, but that story seems to be about Dolby going after AV1, not the other way around.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

    Oh man. I hope Dolby looses. Patents are way too long and benefit so few that I think they shouldn't be justified/exist in society. Also some stuff should be decided in court to be essential technology and patents/claims should then be dissolved/voided.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    I believe the error was in the AV1 license NOT having a "if you enforce patent-license-fees on this codec, THEN you can't use this codec" type of coercion..

    ( I may have got the logic wrong, but there's some kind of license that works that way, which other open codecs have used, apparently )

    Just ignoring that predators exist .. provides NO protection from them.

    You have to make your license-agreement break abusers, .. or you're just helping them.

    _ /\ _

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    I believe the error was in the AV1 license NOT having a “if you enforce patent-license-fees on this codec, THEN you can’t use this codec” type of coercion…

    I thought those provisions were usually enforced among the members of a patent pool, to ensure that any licensing customer can trust in the pools word to not be shaken down a second time by an individual pool member later.

    So since AM1 isn't forming a patent pool to sell licenses, and Dolby isn't part of the Alliance for Open Media, it wouldn't really apply either way, no?

    Oh wait, actually there is something like this, see point 1.3 here: https://aomedia.org/license/patent-license/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent