View Single Post
Old 22nd December 2017, 12:39   #6  |  Link
jonatans
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by iwod View Post
While I think that is a nice way of solving the patent problem, but what happen if a patents was responsible for let say 10% of the compression gain, and at a later stage had to be pulled.

Companies who decide on codec had those cost saving in mind. And all of a sudden it is no longer there?
True. And that is why we try to make it very clear that there is a risk that there will be third party patent assertions, just as with any other codec. And users of the codec will have to account for that risk and be prepared to react to it. The main difference with xvc and other codecs is that xvc has a framework for dealing with third party patent assertions from organizations that are not interested in taking part of the licensing program.

Whenever a third party patent infringments is asserted, the first option is to invite the patent holder to join the licensing program. If this is not successful, the validity of the infringement assertion will be assesed (to determine if the assertion should be challenged in court). And only if none of these two options is successful will the technology be removed.

In practice, we do not expect this situation to occur very often (if it occurs at all) and we are confident that we will be able to quickly circumvent such technology and offer an alternative solution with similar performance.

In fact, most of the compression tools provides quite small compression gain in isolation (below 1%) so the impact of turning off just a couple of them would be very minor.
jonatans is offline   Reply With Quote