Comment by PostOnce | Hacker News Reader

Comment by PostOnce | Hacker News Reader

"Hey guys I've got a great idea, why don't you take your free thing that isn't patent-encumbered (AV1), which you're using SOLELY FOR THAT REASON, and go ahead and wrap that in our patented shit, and pay us?"

Yeah, no thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LCEVC

LCEVC leverages a base video codec (e.g., AVC, HEVC, VP9, AV1, EVC or VVC) and employs an efficient low-complexity enhancement that adds up to two layers of encoded residuals, along with normative signalled up-sampling methods, that correct artefacts produced by the base video codec and add detail and sharpness for the final output video.

>> "There is Free of Fee License For Integration as Software Player (important for Open Source based OSes like Linux, and Video Players like VideoLan). 𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗘𝗻𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗟𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗿 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗲𝗺𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗯𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝘀."

It sounds like they are just saying its a layered approach that can be used with any codec. I'm not a fan of patented codecs, but calling it a grand conspiracy to re-patent av1 is a bit much when really all they are saying is it is independent of codec choice.

I'm not calling it a grand conspiracy, but clearly making money by locking other people and companies into a patented regime is the goal here.

AV1 likely is patent encumbered and a patent pool already exists for it.

It just hasn't been tested in the courts since its insignificant market share likely doesn't warrant the effort. And Google clearly doesn't have much confidence since they aren't willing to indemnify any users.

Nevertheless, that is the reason for its invention, and for its use, so LCEVC is completely counterproductive if the goal is to not pay for every device sold as a laptop/phone/gpu/cpu/etc maker

Its history is irrelevant.

Right now it likely is patent encumbered and so not really all that different to HEVC only that it has seen minimal adoption amongst hardware/software vendors and content creators and so is infinitely less useful.

Minimal adoption? Don't YouTube and Netflix use AV1 for their highest-quality offerings?

Last I checked that patent pool didn't actually declare which patents they believe are needed for AV1. It's FUD.

Sisvel who operates the patent pool is acting on behalf of companies like Philips, GE, NTT, Ericsson, Dolby and Toshiba.

These are legitimate companies who have a long history of involvement in the codec space and so unless you have some evidence calling it FUD is pretty baseless.

But again if AOM has full confidence that there are no patents issues then they should indemnify users so there is a guarantee it will be royalty-free.

Ah yes, because major companies have never been misleading with patents.

> But again if AOM has full confidence that there are no patents issues then they should indemnify users so there is a guarantee it will be royalty-free.

Name something you're sure about. Would you be willing to bet your entire life savings its true? Most people would say no, regardless of how sure they are.

> Would you be willing to bet your entire life savings its true? Most people would say no

A person's life savings is not comparable to the funds raised by an LLC. An LLC going bankrupt is not the same as a person going bankrupt.

"We have patents required to implement AV1." "Which patents?" "We're not telling. But they're real, take our word for it." Sounds like FUD to me.

Sure, they have a long history of involvement in the codec space ... which makes them even more desperate to stop AV1 by any means, to stop their patent licensing revenue model from going away.

Of course AOM isn't going to open themselves to unlimited liability in the case of some submarine patent. No-one ever does that. E.g. if you buy HEVC patent pool licenses you don't get any such indemnity.

But the nice feature of AOM of course is the Defensive Termination clause in their patent license: https://aomedia.org/license/patent-license/ If one of the companies you listed launches a first-strike lawsuit against any AV1 user, they lose their ability to use AV1.

Until some company decides to put its neck on the block and launch such a lawsuit, or at least identify specific patents they think are necessary, their claims cannot be taken seriously.

> "We have patents required to implement AV1." "Which patents?" "We're not telling. But they're real, take our word for it." Sounds like FUD to me.

Wat. Yeah. I hear "patent pool", I go "okay, just for orientation let me see an itemized breakdown of the fee schedule." That's the logical continuation of that conversation.

In my head, anyway. I'm just a curious observer who wants to understand how much licensors are paying in practice by understanding what they're paying for.

> Last I checked that patent pool didn't actually declare which patents they believe are needed for AV1. It's FUD.

Is it? Is this not the list? https://www.sisvel.com/images/documents/Video-Coding-Platfor...

I stand corrected, my information was a couple of years out of date. Thanks.

AV1 is definately patent 'encumbered' since part of their strategy is MAD style patent counterattacks on anyone who sues over it, withdrawing the use of the patents that are otherwise freely granted to anyone and everyone.

Still leaves an opening for patent troll type operations but pretty much rules out anyone who actually wants to use codecs in their products. Which is why no one has been foolish enough to try to 'prove it' in court, just trying would wreck their own business.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com