VOOZH about

URL: https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/firm-quietly-boosts-h-264-streaming-license-fees-from-100-000-up-to-staggering-4-5-million-%E2%80%94-backbone-codec-of-the-internet-gets-meteoric-increas.3894744/

⇱ News - Firm quietly boosts H.264 streaming license fees from $100,000 up to staggering $4.5 million — backbone codec of the internet gets meteoric increas... | Tom's Hardware Forum

Menu
Install the app

NewsFirm quietly boosts H.264 streaming license fees from $100,000 up to staggering $4.5 million — backbone codec of the internet gets meteoric increas...

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Video_Coding#Versions
Version 20 (Edition 8): (April 13, 2013) Amendment to specify additional color space identifiers (including support of ITU-R Recommendation BT.2020 for UHDTV) and an additional model type in the tone mapping information SEI message.
Version 25 (Edition 12): (April 13, 2017) Amendment to specify the Progressive High 10 profile, hybrid log–gamma (HLG), and additional color-related VUI code points and SEI messages.

Must be why they kept updating H.264 from release in 2003 to 2024!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Video_Coding#Versions



Must be why they kept updating H.264 from release in 2003 to 2024!
Sure, but what portion if any of those updates is actually patentable? (In a way that holds up in court, anyway.) Simply adding metadata to cover new color space specifications isn't exactly much of an innovation.

Seems to me all this move must be a reaction to Dolby suddenly deciding to assert patents over AV1 8 years after its release, but that only works if Dolby's claims actually survive a court case — which itself seems unlikely given the scrutiny AV1 was given during development. Otherwise all this does if push people away from H.264 even faster, while essentially guaranteeing that any companies not already licensed do not implement support until patents fully expire.
"Avanci's Video pool and Access Advance's Video Distribution Patent pool are both now seeking content royalties from streaming services for the use of HEVC, VVC, VP9, and AV1"

I thought VP9 and AV1 were royalty-free?
In fact, my next line was
Bold choice, considering AV1 is royalty-free
Sure, but what portion if any of those updates is actually patentable? (In a way that holds up in court, anyway.) Simply adding metadata to cover new color space specifications isn't exactly much of an innovation.

Seems to me all this move must be a reaction to Dolby suddenly deciding to assert patents over AV1 8 years after its release, but that only works if Dolby's claims actually survive a court case — which itself seems unlikely given the scrutiny AV1 was given during development. Otherwise all this does if push people away from H.264 even faster, while essentially guaranteeing that any companies not already licensed do not implement support until patents fully expire.
Exactly, this is just a cash grab as h264 looses market share, trying to piggyback on Dolby's patent trolling. Companies should be fined into the ground for this kind of behaviour.
"Avanci's Video pool and Access Advance's Video Distribution Patent pool are both now seeking content royalties from streaming services for the use of HEVC, VVC, VP9, and AV1"

I thought VP9 and AV1 were royalty-free?
In fact, my next line was
Bold choice, considering AV1 is royalty-free
Why can't people just pay them for the idea of using compression? Won't anyone think of the investors?
Sisvel and more recently Avanci have gone after AV1 use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV1#Patent_claims
And that's the problem with software patents. Rather than incentivizing innovation, all they really do is make it impossible for smaller players to enter the market, because even if you're not actually infringing, it may easily cost tens of millions to defend against a case like this.

Not to mention that a significant portion of software patents just cover obvious developments anyone trying to implement some given tech would have come up with. Think the whole Apple Watch blood oxygen fiasco, where the workaround ended up being simply to not show the results on the watch. Why is the idea of "do this thing we already know how to do, but on a watch" worth granting a 20-year monopoly over?
This is why open source systems are important. Instead of paying billions, pay a fraction of it to support opensource ecosystem.
This is genuinely crazy and quite honestly at this point everybody should be switching to Av1 anyways.
That's why we now have, evidently, multiple companies claiming to own patents covering AV1.

Why it took 8 years for these claims to come out of the woodwork, of course, is anyone's guess. 😉
And that's the problem with software patents. Rather than incentivizing innovation, all they really do is make it impossible for smaller players to enter the market, because even if you're not actually infringing, it may easily cost tens of millions to defend against a case like this.

Not to mention that a significant portion of software patents just cover obvious developments anyone trying to implement some given tech would have come up with. Think the whole Apple Watch blood oxygen fiasco, where the workaround ended up being simply to not show the results on the watch. Why is the idea of "do this thing we already know how to do, but on a watch" worth granting a 20-year monopoly over?
Its never a good idea to pitch the baby out together with the bath water.

For every patent troll there's dozens of good faith patent actors who don't deserve to be punished. If we let the good guys be defined by the bad guys..............

Well, that has happened in human history. It lead to many deaths.

Patents are worth keeping and patent trolls are worth targeting. If it needs more steep punishments, more rigorous enforcement or other, all options should be on the table.

Only a person who knows someone who's held a patent understands why this is so important to preserve.
This will work until a newer better codec comes forth. It is a matter of time as H.264 is aging and should be replaced anyway. Streaming being so massive im not sure why nobody has made a better more robust codec to replace H.264 yet. But in putting the price so high I will bet there will be a new player in the ring in no time, that is if this doesnt get contested and whoever holds the H.264 patent has kept it up and in good standing as patents do run out and maybe that is the play on this as well the patent could be coming up on expiration and they are trying to capitalize while they can.
This will work until a newer better codec comes forth. It is a matter of time as H.264 is aging and should be replaced anyway. Streaming being so massive im not sure why nobody has made a better more robust codec to replace H.264 yet. But in putting the price so high I will bet there will be a new player in the ring in no time, that is if this doesnt get contested and whoever holds the H.264 patent has kept it up and in good standing as patents do run out and maybe that is the play on this as well the patent could be coming up on expiration and they are trying to capitalize while they can.
Define "more robust codec".

There's clearly H.265, AV1, H.266, and soon AV2 that are all technically superior. H.264 is "good enough" in many cases and enjoys ubiquitous hardware/software support.
Reactions: bit_user
This is why open source systems are important. Instead of paying billions, pay a fraction of it to support opensource ecosystem.
Open source doesn't directly solve the problem of software patents. It helps, because it creates a verifiable record of "prior art", that could be used to invalidate some patent claims, but that's about it.
Why it took 8 years for these claims to come out of the woodwork, of course, is anyone's guess. 😉
My solution to this is: the patent office should require annual payment to keep a patent in force. Increase the renewal fee year-by-year, so that companies are eventually forced to either use it or lose it, and cannot afford to accumulate too many more patents than what they're actually using.

Patent trolling is a form of rent-seeking. It's anti-innovation and hurting economic growth.
If you don't use the new features, then you shouldn't need to pay a license fee.
Tell that to the sharks.

Maybe some of these features are impossible for streamers to ignore, such as Scalable Video Coding in 2007.
Greed will destroy everything
Greed is what powers innovation and the economy, in the first place. It's not evil, but it's also not good - it just .

You might as well say that gravity will destroy everything. Yes, gravity is a powerful force that destroys a lot of stuff, but it also can be harnessed to do interesting things.

The way to make greed work for consumers, instead of against us, is to ensure the market economy is well-regulated. In order to do that, you need regulators who are not easily influenced, and that requires getting money out of politics. More people need to understand this, because apparently that's going to take a Constitutional Amendment.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

👁 Image

Space.com is part of Future plc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. Visit our corporate site.
© Future Publishing Limited Quay House, The Ambury, Bath BA1 1UA. All rights reserved. England and Wales company registration number 2008885.
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
👁 Image
Facebook
👁 Image
Twitter
👁 Image
Instagram
Top Bottom