At least the patent licenses usually used with MPEG mean that private use of open source implementations is free.
The existence of Theora, VP8, VP9, and now AV1 seems to contradict that theory.
You could argue that they infringe on some unknown patents, but that is also arguably true of patent cabals like MPEG (you just hope that the cabal is big enough that there aren't any patentholders lurking outside). The only difference is that with a patent cabal you have the fun of having to obey the restrictions of everyone who showed up with a possibly-related-in-some-way patent and joined the cabal.
Not to mention that it isn't necessary for a patent pool to be a cabal. AOMedia has a similar structure to a patent cabal except it doesn't act like a cabal (its patent pool is royalty-free in the style of the W3C). So even if the argument is that a patent pool is a good idea (and video codecs cannot be developed without them), there isn't a justification behind turning the patent pool into a cabal.
> At least the patent licenses usually used with MPEG mean that private use of open source implementations is free.
You say that, but there's a reason why some distributions (openSUSE for one) still can't ship x264 (even though the code itself is free software). Not to mention the need for Cisco's OpenH264 in Firefox (which you cannot recompile or modify otherwise you lose the patent rights to use it). The existence of the MPEG patent cabal isn't a good thing, and any minor concessions you get from them do not justify their actions.
The video patents aren't just "patent troll" patents, either. They are highly enforceable, and were registered by corporations like Ampex.
I have been trying to write a simple app to stream RTSP (security cameras), and that has been a pain.
I need to basically use either proprietary (paid) or GPL software to do it.
Video software is not for the faint of heart. Much as I grouse about the licensing, I am not about to develop my own codec.
I did write this one app, which is an ffmpeg wrapper, to convert RTSP to HLS (Which is not -currently- suitable for realtime streaming): https://github.com/RiftValleySoftware/RVS_MediaServer
It's GPL, because I need to use the GPL ffmpeg H.264 codec.
> It's GPL, because I need to use the GPL ffmpeg H.264 codec.
I don't understand the problem?
I can see the problem with people patenting things and preventing you from writing your own implementation, but it seems you just want other people to do the hard work of implementing it so you can wrap a skin around it and do what?
It was a statement of fact.
I've been writing open-source software for well over 20 years (actually, well over 30 years –Where does the time go?).
I think I understand the issues involved.
edit: Your project reminds me, https://github.com/arut/nginx-rtmp-module is super worth checking out and might be helpful to you.
One of the frustrating things about implementing video software, even licensing it, is pretty much everything out there is an expression of ffmpeg, which is a really, really good system, but does have some baggage.
And retaliation clauses are present in basically every free software license that has clauses dealing with patents (including Apache-2.0).
I'm more and more fond of calling it all a big game of chicken, a MAD without nukes,
Apparently, they aren't. There are at least 2 other patent pools that claim patents for HEVC, and I think I saw 3 in some other article before:
https://streaminglearningcenter.com/codecs/hevc-ip-mess-wors...
Edited because I didn't know that some European countries accept software patents.
For example, many countries in EU do not allow patents on software, but that's not something you can claim to be true for all of them - at least before Brexit, since iirc UK was pretty happy to provide software patents.
Then there's a case where if you're really willing you can, as far as I understand, force a patent dispute through WTO, with possibility of patent valid in USA being executed for example in Poland, despite the fact that the patent is invalid in Poland (it doesn't matter if your software is part of physical solution in Poland, algorithms of any kind are not patentable).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_Eur...
The question is, does a "practicing entity" holding the patent cares enough to go through the hardest route to get the patent executed using WTO as a forum? One needs to compare costs and benefits. It's why patent trolling involved pretty much few counties in Texas, because that's where the costs were lowest compared to benefits.
Look at all those European patents in the MPEG-LA license pool!
Wanna take the risk? You might end-up winning the lawsuit, but at this moment, there's a good chance for you to be already out-of-business.
- in Europe: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1702.html
- in US: https://web.archive.org/web/20061205050434/http://eolas.com/...
But as I said, if your startup is being sued by Dolby, whether the enforcement is successful or not is actually irrelevant. Showing that your work doesn't infringe a patent, or that Dolby's patent is invalid, is a money and time-consuming process (unsurprisingly, patents are not generally written to facilitate re-implementation or defense).
(Moreover, in the US, in some cases, the patent owner might even get a preliminary injunction ( https://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/matters/matters-9712.h... ), which might seriously and immediately harm your business. I don't know if such a thing exists in Europe).
Big tech companies like Dolby and IBM use a preventive racket-looking technique ; it involves trying to sell to potential infringers a "protective" subscription, but there's no preliminary analysis of whether there actually is any patent being infringed.
During broadcasting tech events like IBC or NAB, Dolby actually sends people to other company's booths for this ; and there's a famous story about IBM against small-at-this-time SUN : https://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/044.html , whose gist is:
> "OK," [the IBM lawyer] said, "maybe you don't infringe these seven patents. But we have 10,000 U.S. patents.
> Do you really want us to go back to Armonk [IBM headquarters in New York] and find seven patents you do infringe?
> Or do you want to make this easy and just pay us $20 million?"
This is a quirk of some UK courts, where you can literally just start a case to ask a question on some detail of the law and get an answer.
The question was:
> "Is it a defence to the claim under s.60(2) of the Patents Act 1977, if otherwise good, that the host computer claimed in the patent in suit is not present in the UK, but is connected to the rest of the apparatus claimed in the patent."
From Wikipedia:
> Questions of validity were never considered by the court.
Not a private organization.
> Edited because I didn't know that some European countries accept software patents.
European patents are granted at the European Patent Office (individual european countries also have their own patent offices, whose patents can only be enforced in their home country).
"1.3. Defensive Termination. If any Licensee, its Affiliates, or its agents initiates patent litigation or files, maintains, or voluntarily participates in a lawsuit against another entity or any person asserting that any Implementation infringes Necessary Claims, any patent licenses granted under this License directly to the Licensee are immediately terminated as of the date of the initiation of action unless 1) that suit was in response to a corresponding suit regarding an Implementation first brought against an initiating entity, or 2) that suit was brought to enforce the terms of this License (including intervention in a third-party action by a Licensee)."
This makes it much harder for practicing entities or their licensees to assert claims against other practicing entities over the formats.
Ultimately, it's a question of how much you're gonna risk to get where you want, and how much power/influence/wealth you can bring to squash a possible lawsuit.
To completely avoid risk your only choice is to to use old technology where all the patents have expired (20 years in US), like MPEG-2. The next lowest risk is to use H.264 and VP9 which have been out for a while and whose the patent pools have stabilized over the years (and the original parts of the standard will have their patents expire soon - but not some of the newer profiles). After that I would argue that AV1 is less risky that H.265 and H.266, as a lot of work was put into intentionally avoiding patented technology that was not part of the pool, and no one outside the pool has yet made patent claims against it.
EVC baseline is basically that, only using technology based on H.264 that are already expired or soon to be expired and patented techniques from companies that are giving it away to the standard.
In some way EVC is even more exciting than VVC.
You can, but fraunhofer certainly isn't trying!
> At least the patent licenses usually used with MPEG mean that private use of open source implementations is free.
0_o that is not at all the truth.
Why is that?
Now compound this by the fact that a) trying to make an exhaustive patent search to get a verifiable claim that you don't infringe on any patent is very problematic b) known patent pools like MPEG-LA are known not to cover everything.
So you can make a reasonable bet that you avoid infringing patents by avoiding patents from MPEG-LA and few other better known groups, but you can't actually guarantee that you're not infringing on any patents.
This resolves, sort of, into a game of chicken and depends heavily on whether a lesser known patent holder decides it's worth it to bother executing against you... but even if they don't, unless they come out with a royalty-free license, the possibility of patent is a Damocles' Sword hanging over your codec.
Is there even such a thing?
Isn't the problem that one has to actually go to court to get the answer to this question?
In fact, I heard more than once that current advice is to explicitly avoid searching :/
The way to get around this is to exist in the EU and avoid providing anything to the US.
They can be reasonably sure they do not infringe known patents from certain Patent Pools and patents declared as part of MPEG-LA bundles. They can't provide reasonable data that they do not infringe on any submarine patent, something that killed 3 attempts by MPEG-LA to provide a royalty-free codec for the web - all that was required to kill it was a note from a company that they "might" have patents covering things they tried to release, or that they decided not to allow royalty-free license for their known patent.
Meanwhile patent search is complex enough that it's unreasonable to impossible to make a statement that you definitely don't infringe any unless you keep clear of anything invented within last ~20 years.
That's true of every new video codec. It didn't stop the use of H.264 or VP9 or even HEVC.
Multiple companies have now rolled out AV1 into production. We'll see what happens.
What's wrong is claiming that AV1, VP9, VP8 are "patent-free". They are not.
Care to try your luck?
I don't think they'll be successful. The Alliance for Open Media was careful to avoid potential patent problems during AV1 development. So, unless AOMedia seriously failed in that effort, AV1 will be alright.
The patent system was not designed to have every tiny little technique patented, and this is its failure mode.
In the USA. Wilful and unwilful infringement of the patent costs the same in Europe.