Lawsuits, licensing, and royalties are complicating 4K video support in gadgets
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think HP, Dell, etc are removing the functionality from people who already bought products while HEVC was an advertised feature (or even if they did advertise it as a feature at all - when you look at adverts for laptops, I don't think you usually see a list of supported codecs)?What a shitshow. If something is purchased with capability X, such as X being the ability to decode HEVC in hardware, then it should have the capability for the entire life of the product, and not be subject to the whims of...... because they're too cheap or too lazy or scared or, whatever. Frankly I don't give a shit what their reason is, they shouldn't be allowed to yank out the rug from under users - and I suspect in Australia such a thing would be considered misleading and deceptive conduct and unlawful.
Wouldn't whether it's deceptive depend on whether there was advertising to the effect that when you buy this product, you get this as a feature? I suppose also if you checked and it was enabled, e.g. on an in-store demo unit, that would count as advertising, since the in-store demo features should match what's actually sold to customers, else it's a bit of a bait-and-switch.
As for HP and Dell, if I understand correctly, it's that future laptops they sell of those low-end models will not advertise nor come with HEVC support. I think, I could be wrong, but I think if you have one of those laptops that already supports HEVC, it will continue to do so?
Upvote
-8
(7
/
-15)
But most of the patent holders for HEVC are in Europe or Asia…
Upvote
16
(16
/
0)
It's not just a worry, it's reality. The usual suspects are coming after it already with patent lawsuits. With HEVC licensing issues at play, the next best (read: cheapest) alternative is AV1, and do you think the patent trolls haven't noticed?
Upvote
9
(14
/
-5)
The other risk, as is becoming pretty clear with this current maladministration, is that the US government may decide to put export controls or punitive duties on any US-held patents.
So far Trump has been more focused on tariffs on imports, than on duties on exports, but I keep waiting for us all to wake up one day and see that Trump decided to slap a 100% duty on exports to some group of countries because he's throwing a tantrum. Which of course would just hurt US companies trying to export. Cue the "curb your enthusiasm" music.
Upvote
0
(12
/
-12)
Between DRM and licensing it seems like its ever more painful to try and consume content legally...
Another gripe I have is ATSC3.0 using AC4 audio which has painful codec support issues.
Another gripe I have is ATSC3.0 using AC4 audio which has painful codec support issues.
Upvote
12
(13
/
-1)
So I realize that this doesn't do Netflix (et. all) any good, but maybe it's time to just rely on H.264 until the wheels well and truly fall off. H.265 becomes patent free in 2031, so maybe we just use more bandwidth until then and go without? AV1 doesn't become patent free until the 2040s, but many of the leeches trying to attach to it may have their patents expire in the next few years.
I feel like these battles were a lot more impactful years ago when companies were fighting over MPEG-2 and MP3, because there really was no alternative. At this point, however, MPEG2 and MP3 are free and clear of any patents, and many later standards (e.g. h.264) are either clear or almost clear of patents as well.
It's a mess of a situation, but unlike most messes, this one will actually get better in time, around 5 years. Just paying the bandwidth bill might be better than dealing with all the leeches.
I feel like these battles were a lot more impactful years ago when companies were fighting over MPEG-2 and MP3, because there really was no alternative. At this point, however, MPEG2 and MP3 are free and clear of any patents, and many later standards (e.g. h.264) are either clear or almost clear of patents as well.
It's a mess of a situation, but unlike most messes, this one will actually get better in time, around 5 years. Just paying the bandwidth bill might be better than dealing with all the leeches.
Upvote
40
(41
/
-1)
This is how all codecs work. HEVC and AV1 mentioned in the article are both video codecs. Audio codecs include things like Dolby Digital or Advanced Audio Codec (AAC). Video and audio tracks use these separate encodings and they’re packaged together into a file format called a “container.”
Upvote
22
(22
/
0)
I feel like there needs to be a generalized POSA (Person of Ordinary Skill in the Arts) challenge process for patents generally.
You should be able to invalidate a patent by finding a dozen ordinary engineers of the appropriate type, sitting them down with the goals of the patent but not its implementation, and providing them with info on every previous patents (perhaps carefully cherry-picked to encourage certain lines of thought). Given them access to any information that was publicly available before the filing date of the target patent, again, possibly cherry-picked to encourage certain lines of reasoning.
Give them some time, maybe a week or two, and see what they come up with. If they generate any "patent" filings that the target patent would have been found to infringe on its inception, then the resulting patent is not "non-obvious" and should be invalidated. If the POSA crew fails, then try again in a few years.
And in all cases, any "patent" filings they make should be incorporated into the patent database as expired patents on the day they generate them, essentially additional prior art to help invalidate future patents.
(edit, acronym, DYAC)
Upvote
6
(12
/
-6)
Bullshit. Number of successful open source projects are proofs to the contrary (Linux kernel, PostgreSQL, Blender, etc.)
Upvote
41
(49
/
-8)
So, if I read the defense here of patent law: they encourage research and development? Prior to 1474 when the first patent laws went into effect, no research and development happened. Or were patents designed to protect- surprise!- generally rich people who COULD do research and development? Are we to believe that without patenty law, no further progress in human history would have occurred?
Last edited:
Upvote
16
(19
/
-3)
Oh, right. I got the impression that they were removing functionality from existing, purchased devices via an update.
Isn't the advertising also in the product specs? If the specs say it is capable of X, and it isn't actually (or is updated to remove it) - that's bad. It's like the PS3 and dual booting that they removed (and got sued for).
Removing functionality that was previously available sucks, but if it's clear that's what you're getting - then it's just part of the overall enshittification trend like everything else. You get to pay more for less... Yay, I guess. (/s)
Upvote
3
(5
/
-2)
Standards shouldn't be subject to patents. Period.
If it's patent-encumbered, it doesn't get to be a standard.
If it's patent-encumbered, it doesn't get to be a standard.
Upvote
44
(49
/
-5)
That tracks. You're right it'll take a decade.
HEVC was published in 2013. It has been 13 years.
AV1 was published in 2018. It has been 8 years, slightly over half of HEVC's lifetime.
//
AV1 is a codec released by AOMedia, a legally-recognized non-profit.
AOMedia's parent organisation is the Linux Foundation.
AV1 is open : aom - Git at Google
Skepticism is always necessary, but it soon needs actual evidence to keep itself relevant.
//
How would that work? How has any codec directly and literally saved money for consumers? Codecs are a product. You use a product and you get value from it: lower bitrates, less buffering, etc.
This train of thought has nothing to do specifically with AV1. Of course companies paying bandwidth fees want to lower their fees.
The existence of Big Tech in a project does not mean it is owned by Big Tech.
Upvote
64
(64
/
0)
No, definitely not. R&D companies dig into the unknown. It's hard as fuck. Maybe what they find is trivial or boring, maybe it's brilliant and game-changing. Either way, it's valuable and worth every penny (and more).
But I wasn't talking about R&D companies. Instead, I'm talking about companies that have effectively become patent trolls, like Ericsson and Nokia (both legendary in their time, for very good reasons, now hollowed out and zombified, existing just to "own and license the IP").
Of course, the IP is theirs, and cannot be taken from them. But they shouldn't be able to force the industry to reinvent wheels just because "we own the IP even if there's nobody in the whole company that understands the IP".
I have no solutions, but this doesn't feel right.
Upvote
45
(46
/
-1)
No, other people use the proper term, which is patent troll. They’re leeches.
Upvote
30
(32
/
-2)
Reverse-engineering is a way to avoid infringing on someone else's copyright, but it's not going to avoid infringing on a software patent. No matter how the codec is implemented, any patents on its implementation will still apply.
Upvote
68
(70
/
-2)
There's nothing to reverse engineer, the specification is open. And reverse engineering does not avoid patents anyway.
Upvote
39
(39
/
0)
And if we allow them to be patentable, then the term limit should be 5 years maximum. I can understand why in traditional industries 20 years can make sense (hardware is risky in terms of material and money), but not in software.
Software doesn’t need patents to spur innovation and 20 years is beyond a lifetime in software. Consider how far Windows and MacOS have come in 20 years as an example.
The lack of patents in software is what motivates business to monetise and move forward quickly.
Short lifetime patents could be a compromise, but the issue is a patent is meant to describe an implementation, but we’ve seen people being sued for code with similar behaviour, but a different implementation. For this reason I’m generally skeptical of the effectiveness of patents in this context.
Upvote
32
(35
/
-3)
It’s funny you mention that. I vividly remember a big part of 90s/00s tech culture was getting the right codec packs to make an AVI or MKV play. We’re just going in circles.
Upvote
32
(34
/
-2)
My point is that these highly complex pieces of software didn't require forcing their users into paying their authors.
Upvote
6
(8
/
-2)
As the owner of several HP computers I know this drill well. It's easy to pay $1 to get Microsoft support for the player but this is somethign that HP could have done more efficiently.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
The hell you cant. You absolutely can. As with many things there are uncomfortably free solutions to red-tape problems like this. Certainly if you've already paid netflix, however, I'm not sure you should feel that bad.
Upvote
12
(15
/
-3)
i really hope AOMedia or their members will start to sue or even buy up whoever that says they have AV1 patents. that way they can remove the trash before its to late, with all the hevc/avc cartels just making everything more expensive and their monopoly control over codecs, i have ran into this bullshit issue as well hevc codec missing due to patent
might well just outlaw software patents
might well just outlaw software patents
Upvote
-1
(2
/
-3)
That's because software patents aren't allowed in the EU, so companies work around it by patenting the process instead. It's still utter nonsense.
Upvote
21
(22
/
-1)
Dear god, it’s 2026 and you’re still acting out the open source denier troll persona?
Next you’re going to argue Y2K is overblown and we shouldn’t try to manage it.
Upvote
28
(31
/
-3)
Right, what I meant more specifically is I wasn't sure if Theora included a newer audio codec that was normally used with it, or if it explicitly just uses the older Vorbis codec for audio ( I suppose you could pair other audio codecs in the container if you really wanted to force the issue, but I presume normally Ogg Theora would be paired with some Ogg audio codec, and I guess that would usually be Vorbis)?
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Nokia and Ericsson made bank from the telephony equipment they sold, which were top notch thanks to their R&D.
Upvote
21
(22
/
-1)