No one said that Opus is the only one suffering from licensing ambiguity, but comparing it to say AptX and its variants which do have a clear one stop shop for licensing (Qualcomm) it’s a much riskier venture especially when it comes to hardware.
Even if it's AptX and Qualcomm issues you a license in exchange for money. I wouldn't even bet on being able to claw back these license costs after being ordered to destroy your AptX-equipped product after it ran into somebody else's patent.
The risk that this happens is _exactly_ the same for Opus or AptX.
I could claim to have a long list of patents against AptX. Anyone could.
Of course I'm not willing to disclose the list of patents at this time, but customers looking to be extorted may contact me privately.
It makes for some funny reading if you're familiar with the field. (This should not be construed as legal advice as to the validity of the pool)
https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html#/patent/searc...
It’s like someone selling a deed to land they don’t own, or leasing a property they don’t own to a tenant.
Few people will even bother to try, and if so, you keep them at a distance with some random bullshit (communication can break down _sooo_ easily), but it certainly poisons the well by adding a layer of FUD to the tech you're targeting with your claims.
Standard fare of patent pool operators, and it's high time to reciprocate.