> Patents don’t even appear to be serving their intended purpose, I mean Netflix subscribers just got a worse service now.
Think longer term. Without patents, maybe there would be no H.265 to use in the first place. So consumers win after all.
Think longer term. Without patents, maybe there would be no H.265 to use in the first place. So consumers win after all.
So yes, please continue to threaten me with a good time.
AV1 was created to be license-fee-free. There are lots of patents in AV1, it's just that their holders don't ask for money:
> Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Licensor, on behalf of itself and successors in interest and assigns, grants Licensee a non-sublicensable, perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as expressly stated in this License) patent license to its Necessary Claims to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import or distribute any Implementation.
AV1 is a clear example that non-patent incentives are clearly enough to make markets invent superior media codecs. And at this point, if AV1 succeeds, it will have succeeded in spite of the extremely hostile environment created by patents. If it fails, it will fail because of patents.