Not sure how they can make this statement.
VP8 was patent encumbered all over the place and eventually required licensing from MPEG-LA. Surely AV1 would be infringing on at least some of HEVC's expansive patent pool. Unless of course Google is willing to indemnify user's against patent infringement lawsuit. Which would be really big news.
Matt Frost of Google is quoted as saying:
"Obviously, if we have an open source codec, we need to take very strong steps, and be very diligent in making sure that we are in fact producing something that's royalty free. So we have an extensive IP diligence process which involves diligence on both the contributor level – so when Google proposes a tool, we are doing our in-house IP diligence, using our in-house patent assets and outside advisors – that is then forwarded to the group, and is then again reviewed by an outside counsel that is engaged by the alliance. So that's a step that actually slows down innovation, but is obviously necessary to produce something that is open source and royalty free."
The original source is a video, but this quote transcript is on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV1#cite_note-frost-sme2017-16
A patent for 'user status update suggestions' for example. Yuck.
Terrestrial broadcast standards have to move slowly. Internet-based streaming and storage can move much faster, and it's supremely beneficial to be able to do so. MPEG-2's now-expired patent portfolio isn't too useful for that, and hasn't been for quite a while now.
For decades, companies like Sony, Sharp, NTT, etc., bankrolled that R&D by licensing patents to the technology, and selling devices incorporating the technology.
Today, the Internet enables new monetization models. Companies like Apple and Google can directly monetize video content through iTunes and Google Play (or indirectly through Youtube). They can use that to bankroll their investment in new video codecs.
Was it? Can you name a single patent? MPEG-LA never did.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/03/googl...
The never do. It's like the mob: "pay us or you'll be in trouble". You can either pay the MPEGLA (and by the way, you will never know who inside the MPEGLA decided to sue you), or face consequences (and discover which patents are supposedly infringed)
Yes, it probably would, but if these patents are owned by members of AOM it is not an issue
AOMedia Video 1 (AV1), is an open, royalty-free video coding format designed for video transmissions over the Internet. It is being developed by the Alliance for Open Media (AOMedia), a consortium of firms from the semiconductor industry, video on demand providers, and web browser developers, founded in 2015.
All of that was covered in the article as well.
http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/News/-76781.aspx
http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/an-analysis-of-webm-and-its-p...
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/patent-clouds-remain-over...
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/next-patent-infringement-...
So far as I can see, that's the final state. Google ended up having to get a license from the MPEG-LA VP8 patent pool.
> Google's Serge Lachapelle notes that today's agreement is "not an acknowledgment" that VP8 infringes on any of the patents claimed by MPEG LA
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg0663...