AV1 and Legal Challenges: Does the Codec Have a Future?

Following the state of intellectual property (IP)-related strategies is part of the job of any encoding professional. Here’s an update on two issues and my thoughts on the IP status of the AO媒体 Video 1 (AV1) codec.

One scary litigation from last year was Nokia suing Apple for H.264侵权，如诺基亚采取了一种有趣的策略 that might have excluded encoder-related patents from fair, 合理的, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) pricing restrictions that apply to technologies included as part of a standard. 今年5月，苹果和诺基亚就这一诉讼达成和解苹果向诺基亚支付了一笔未披露的金额. For most of us small producers, this is meaningless, but if you’re shipping boatloads of H.264编码器, 解码器, 或两个, 而且你现在也没有给诺基亚开支票, 期待电话.

Another IP-related turn from late 2016 was the MPEG LA-sponsored DASH (dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP) group. What I’ve heard from several sources is that most large companies intend to ignore the group unless and until one or more of the group members files an infringement suit. 大家普遍认为DASH是, 在本质上, 涉及基于文本的清单文件的方案, 这不是特别令人印象深刻的开始, 大部分繁重的工作都是由思科完成的, Qualcomm, 和微软, 这是n’t part of the royalty group and aren’t seeking royalties. 提议的版税总额为每年3000万美元, the larger companies seem willing to roll the dice to invalidate the patents rather than ponying up voluntarily. 有趣的是, the MPEG LA licensee list for this group had zero entries when I checked the list on June 8. 我们会看到.

Regarding the legal status of the Alliance for Open 媒体’s AV1 codec, there’s a general feeling that AV1 will be challenged and will likely lose because there “must” be some infringing technology in the codec. This is typified by comments from Joe Inzerillo, CTO of BAMTech, who, during a 流媒体东部的主题演讲, said that “serious companies” shouldn’t waste time with a “free” technology that ultimately is unproven legally. 在我看来, 乔是宇宙中最亮的恒星之一, 而且肯定能请到比我更好的律师, 但我不同意.

First of all, the Alliance includes members like Adobe, Amazon, AMD, ARM, Bitmovin, Broadcom, Chips&媒体, 思科, 谷歌, 英特尔, Ittiam系统, 微软, Mozilla, 网飞公司, 英伟达, 和瑞昱, 这是, 在任何人看来, 一些非常严肃的公司.

第二个, 在谷歌收购On2之前, the early VPx codecs had achieved significant success without any patent claims. This includes VP6, which was the “it” codec for Flash before H.264, and VP7, which was used in Skype and by Move Networks. Then 谷歌 bought On2 and released VP8 and VP9, both used very extensively by YouTube. Nokia made a patent claim in Germany and lost, and that was it.

没错，谷歌授权H.264 patents for VP8/ VP9 when MPEG LA formed a VP9 patent pool, but my discussions with people at 谷歌 indicate that this was window dressing to avoid protracted IP issues, 不是法律上的必要.

关于联盟, I assume that each member performed its own due diligence relating to the underlying codec technology. 所有这些公司都将部署这种编解码器, giving rise to potential royalties if the technology does infringe. 在编解码器开发期间, all contributions to AV1 are being double-vetted for IP claims, 首先是公司的贡献, 然后是外部律师事务所和其他专家.

Assuming that AV1 will wither due to IP claims from the H.264/HEVC camp also assumes that 谷歌 and all members of the Alliance bought a pig in a poke, a potential problem they felt they couldn’t defend in court or otherwise negotiate away. 严肃的公司不会这么做.

I haven’t studied the underlying IP, so I can’t render an informed decision. 在我看来, assuming companies with a combined market share of multiple billions are making a silly IP-related decision is almost always an incorrect assumption.

[本文发表于2017年7月/ 8月号。 流媒体杂志 AV1:跟着钱走."]