It sounds like your assumption is that a patent pool=patent trolls, no gray, all black and white. And that patent pools exert only negative influences on the market.
If so, why are H.264 and HEVC the most widely used codecs on the market today (excluding MPEG-2 which is also subject to a pool)?
Why have so few companies adopted VP9? Or AV1 for that matter? Because they don't trust that the technologies are truly open source and don't want to step into potential litigation.
You are correct in saying "The companys that make up av1 media have they money to go to court and try to invalidate the patent,s or show the patents are not relevant in relation to the new streaming format codec." That's how the system works.
BTW, of all the patent pool administrators, Sisvel is likely the most technical. (see here - https://www.sisvel.com/about-us/r-d-and-technical-expertise). It doesn't mean that Google can sue them into submission but it does mean that there's a lot of technical credibility to any pool that they form.
Google involved the DOJ and then signed a licensing agreement with MPEG LA for “techniques that may be essential to VP8 and earlier-generation VPx video compression technologies under patents owned by 11 patent holders.” As the article says, "Chances are Google had to pay for this license, but the financial details of the agreement were not disclosed."
There doesn't appear to be a DOJ play here as Sisvel performed all the normal due diligence required by pools. Google/AOM may attempt to play that card, but I wouldn't assume it would work now or that it worked in 2013.
Re:
It sounds like your assumption is that a patent pool=patent trolls, no gray, all black and white. And that patent pools exert only negative influences on the market.
If so, why are H.264 and HEVC the most widely used codecs on the market today (excluding MPEG-2 which is also subject to a pool)?
Why have so few companies adopted VP9? Or AV1 for that matter? Because they don't trust that the technologies are truly open source and don't want to step into potential litigation.
You are correct in saying "The companys that make up av1 media have they money to go to court and try to invalidate the patent,s or show the patents are not relevant in relation to the new streaming format codec." That's how the system works.
BTW, of all the patent pool administrators, Sisvel is likely the most technical. (see here - https://www.sisvel.com/about-us/r-d-and-technical-expertise). It doesn't mean that Google can sue them into submission but it does mean that there's a lot of technical credibility to any pool that they form.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Google involved the DOJ and then signed a licensing agreement with MPEG LA for “techniques that may be essential to VP8 and earlier-generation VPx video compression technologies under patents owned by 11 patent holders.” As the article says, "Chances are Google had to pay for this license, but the financial details of the agreement were not disclosed."
https://techcrunch.com/2013/03/07/google-and-mpeg-la-sign-licensing-agreement-cover ing-googles-vp8-video-codec-clearing-the-way-for-wider-adoption/
There doesn't appear to be a DOJ play here as Sisvel performed all the normal due diligence required by pools. Google/AOM may attempt to play that card, but I wouldn't assume it would work now or that it worked in 2013.
Re: Patent List
Here you go.
https://www.sisvel.com/images/documents/Video-Coding-Platform/PatentList_AV1_10032020.pdf
https://w ww.sisvel.com/images/documents/Video-Coding-Platform/PatentList_VP9_10032020.pdf
EF
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by evenflow.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt