AV1’s open, royalty-free promise in question as Dolby sues Snapchat over codec
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
I wonder how much of this “business model” consists of waiting for a technology to be so widespread that it’s infeasible to stop using it, then jumping up and yelling “I declare patent infringement!”
Upvote
573
(576
/
-3)
Software patents and rent-seeking moneymen have to ruin every-fucking-thing, don't they?
Upvote
435
(438
/
-3)
OK so I guess Dolby is going on The List but really now its a difficult list to still administer, now it's harder to find a vendor I'll still want to buy from.
Not that I've paid for anything media related for decades, but still.
Not that I've paid for anything media related for decades, but still.
Upvote
130
(144
/
-14)
You really couldn't find someone with expertise on AV1's development to comment on the patent situation?
AV1 was specifically developed to avoid patents by some of the best codec developers and well staffed legal teams in the world after decades of getting dicked around by patent holders. Don't you think anyone involved there might have something interesting to say?
I'm being overly salty here, but it's because meanwhile the article quotes Florian Mueller of all people, legally-divulged software patent shill who commented for years on the Google v Oracle Java case without disclosing his funding.
AV1 was specifically developed to avoid patents by some of the best codec developers and well staffed legal teams in the world after decades of getting dicked around by patent holders. Don't you think anyone involved there might have something interesting to say?
I'm being overly salty here, but it's because meanwhile the article quotes Florian Mueller of all people, legally-divulged software patent shill who commented for years on the Google v Oracle Java case without disclosing his funding.
Upvote
684
(689
/
-5)
Software "patents" need to die in a dumpster fire.
There is a reason the EU and many other large economies do NOT allow parents on software.
There is a reason the EU and many other large economies do NOT allow parents on software.
Upvote
270
(274
/
-4)
I completely agree and by mid-article I was waiting for some defense, any facts, of what must have been a clean room approach to AV1s development.
Upvote
378
(382
/
-4)
Upvote
-19
(5
/
-24)
IANAL but I am actually a little baffled here. Can someone more knowledgeable comment on this:
Why is the individual licensor responsible for this if they can show good faith belief that they're covered by the open license?
In other words: why is this a case against Snap and not against AOMedia?
Why is the individual licensor responsible for this if they can show good faith belief that they're covered by the open license?
In other words: why is this a case against Snap and not against AOMedia?
Upvote
298
(299
/
-1)
Gnafu the Great
Ars Centurion
I've never willingly bought anything from Dolby, but they've sure managed to weasel their way into all kinds of products I enjoy. Screw Dolby!
Upvote
54
(65
/
-11)
The weasel words come early in this case ...
For example HVEC could have also "reused concepts" from the public domain that are now used in AV1 and HVEC.
As long as there is no patent containing a claim that actually describes what the AV1 implementation is doing, that could become a pretty hard sell for Dolby's patent lawyers.
Generally, "reusing concepts" from standards that contain technologies covered by patents is something completely different than implementing a technology covered by a patent or infringing on a patent.
For example HVEC could have also "reused concepts" from the public domain that are now used in AV1 and HVEC.
As long as there is no patent containing a claim that actually describes what the AV1 implementation is doing, that could become a pretty hard sell for Dolby's patent lawyers.
Upvote
237
(238
/
-1)
The strategy is to go after the portion of the supply chain that has the deepest pockets and potential to generate the most revenue. They are also after a royalty and how "fair" that is, is usually based on the value of the product that is using the patent. That's why Qualcomm went after Apple instead of the supplier of the Modem IC because the iPhone sells for orders of magnitude more than the IC.
Edit: added emphasis to hopefully clarify that I'm not talking about the selection of a company, but which set of companies they target.
Last edited:
Upvote
169
(170
/
-1)
Because AOMedia is backed by the likes of Apple, Microsoft, Google, and Netflix. You notice that Dolby is testing the waters on a third-rate has been social media company, rather than those giants with infinite legal warchests.
Upvote
317
(317
/
0)
There's only one Dolby I appreciate, and he blinded me with science.
Upvote
116
(117
/
-1)
So the interesting thing here is that Snapchat apparently licenses the HEVC codec and that they are suing because Snapchat is not paying an additional royalty on the same patents that are part of HEVC standard when they include the AV1 codec. This is all about keeping AV1 from being an alternative because the lowest cost solution is to stop supporting AV1 and just use HEVC.
Upvote
188
(188
/
0)
That's why they're asking for a jury trial. Much easier to muddy the waters with either incredibly complex technical jargon or incredibly vague technical jargon.
Upvote
189
(191
/
-2)
I agree. Ars fell for the trap of soliciting commentary from the loud and opinionated whose livelihood is dependent on delivering loud and opinionated FUD takes instead of taking the time to search out actual subject matter experts.
Upvote
285
(288
/
-3)
You have that backwards. The test is whether there is a portion of the AV1 that contains everything that is described in one of the claims in the patent.
Upvote
41
(41
/
0)
Upvote
44
(48
/
-4)
IANAL. This is just my understanding of how things work.
If you can show that the algorithm was implemented first in AV1, then it doesn't matter if it's also in HEVC, AV1 is prior art and game over for the patent claim. Now, I have no idea if this is what actually happened or not.
It is very risky sometimes to assert a nebulous patent claim in the US because people can challenge the claims in court. It can take a long time, and it's expensive, and there's a risk the challenge won't work, but there is also a definite risk that it will. At one point, the patent trolls got so bad that patent law was revised to make challenging a patent (somewhat) easier.
If there is any chance that the above is true, and even if it isn't, I expect that Snap will file a countersuit to invalidate the patents in question. I expect AOMedia to jump in at some point, either by asking to join the lawsuit or by filing briefs in support of Snap.
If you can show that the algorithm was implemented first in AV1, then it doesn't matter if it's also in HEVC, AV1 is prior art and game over for the patent claim. Now, I have no idea if this is what actually happened or not.
It is very risky sometimes to assert a nebulous patent claim in the US because people can challenge the claims in court. It can take a long time, and it's expensive, and there's a risk the challenge won't work, but there is also a definite risk that it will. At one point, the patent trolls got so bad that patent law was revised to make challenging a patent (somewhat) easier.
If there is any chance that the above is true, and even if it isn't, I expect that Snap will file a countersuit to invalidate the patents in question. I expect AOMedia to jump in at some point, either by asking to join the lawsuit or by filing briefs in support of Snap.
Upvote
77
(80
/
-3)
This is the answer right here. They're hoping they can take this to trial against a smaller player that can't/won't defend themselves and start building legal precedent. They aren't suing AOMedia or one of the bigger players because they'll lose.
They'll eventually lose no matter what, and they know that. What they're trying to do here is inject FUD into the landscape so that hopefully an ecosystem won't build around AV1, because if open-royalty patents eventually become the norm...what is it you'd say you do around here again, Dolby?
Upvote
159
(160
/
-1)
Yeah I have no idea. Personally, I think if you ignore infringement for an extended period of time then the courts should be pretty lenient with whoever was infringing. In the case of video streamers like Amazon, Netflix, etc I would argue they should be allowed to simply switch to a free format and pay nothing unless the patent owner agrees to a reasonable license fee. But who knows what the courts will consider reasonable.
I would think that if they're basing a decision on what's reasonable, it would be obvious that any company would switch to a free alternative if there was no viable paid alternative that was available at a reasonable cost.
I could see imposing an injunction against continued infringement without paying so they could tell Netflix you have 1 week to switch to an alternative, or start paying us, or shut down your business. But not ok you used our format for 20 years without paying so now you owe us 50 trillion dollars.
Upvote
28
(30
/
-2)
Clean room approaches are irrelevant for for the purposes of determining patent infringement.
Upvote
103
(107
/
-4)
And of course if a couple of Dolby's own patents happened to get heavily scrutinised for legal proceedings, then I wouldn't be surprised if snap countersued or someone decided to try and get them invalidated on principle (eg 'prior art', obviousness and/or lack of novelty).
There's a good reason they want to sue smaller parties and try to get precedent (or at least extract a settlement) rather than go near AOMedia given its members and their resources.
Upvote
58
(58
/
0)
It gets difficult to avoid patent infringement when someone has, cleverly, patented math.
Upvote
95
(96
/
-1)
Dolby sucks. Their pattent and license trolling makes buying and using A/V devices a headache. Sure, your TV supports Dolby Vision, but does your sound system support Dolby Audio? You better make sure whatever media you're playing doesn't rely on one of Dolby's proprietary treasures! F right off with that nonsense.
I wish the industry would just leave them behind. There are alternatives that are more open, more widely adopted and, imo, Dolby doesn't really do anything better than them.
I wish the industry would just leave them behind. There are alternatives that are more open, more widely adopted and, imo, Dolby doesn't really do anything better than them.
Upvote
77
(81
/
-4)
It's usually the other way around: go after a small fry without the resources to defend in order to establish a winning record before taking aim at the entities who have the resources to fight the patent.
e: ninja'd by several folks.
Upvote
26
(27
/
-1)
Sounds like AV1 members and manufactures should just agree to abandon all Dolby licensing and interoperability.
I bet whatever they are claiming is already covered by an expired and/or existing patent, which is how the majority of AV1 is built anyway.
I bet whatever they are claiming is already covered by an expired and/or existing patent, which is how the majority of AV1 is built anyway.
Upvote
36
(39
/
-3)
Technical/legal point: "clean room [...] development" has nothing to do with patent law. That's a concept from copyright law pertaining to software, to create a new implementation which is not a derivative work of some existing copyrighted code. If an entity whole-cloth reinvents a patented technology, they're still subject to that patent.
Upvote
103
(103
/
0)
Clean room development is irrelevant to patent infringement, which is not the same as copyright infringement. If you independently arrive at a solution covered by a patent, you can still infringe that patent even if you had never heard of it before.
(Edit: Lol, ninja'd by the guy above me)
Upvote
47
(48
/
-1)
They don't fit exact, but the concepts of a patent ambush and submarine patent are similar:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_ambush
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_patent
Upvote
43
(43
/
0)
Snap isn't exactly a "little guy" here. They are traded on the NYSE with a $6.6 billion market cap.
Upvote
37
(40
/
-3)
I invented the concept of things existing outside my body when I was but a year old. $10 billion please!
Upvote
27
(29
/
-2)
They've also been losing money and are vulnerable to negative shareholder sentiment, having already lost 50% from their 1 year highs and 95% from their all-time 6 years ago. Just the news of this lawsuit alone caused them to lose 20% over the previous day. edit: actually that was news a of separate lawsuit from the EU over online safety. Point stands, Snap has a bloody leg wound and is dog-paddling in shark-infested waters.
Last edited:
Upvote
45
(45
/
0)
Gnafu the Great
Ars Centurion
Regarding "clean room": they didn't reverse engineer anything, so clean room practices don't apply. However, I can say the folks who made the AV1 standard worked closely with lawyers every step of the way to do everything they could to avoid infringing existing patents. They didn't just pool what they had and hope for the best: they intentionally avoided infringing other patents. That's what makes these suits so laughable to me. I watched the development of AV1 closely, and some of the biggest companies in the world probably spent just as much money on lawyers as they did engineers.
Upvote
83
(86
/
-3)
To be honest I hope Google and Netflix ride out in force to back up Snap with whatever they need to put down this patent trolling. AV1 is the best thing to happen in decades of codec development. It would be a minor catastrophe if Dolby were allowed to set precedent here.
Upvote
71
(71
/
0)