Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion.

Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > Video Encoding > VP9 and AV1

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 8th April 2019, 01:25   #21  |  Link
nevcairiel
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamburg/Germany
Posts: 9,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by mandarinka View Post
If you say that to somebody who might have a legitimate claim to the IP
But they stated themselves that they don't even know yet what patents are applicable. That means there could also be none. So they are charging money before they even know if they have a case to do so. How is that good practice, or not trolling?
__________________
LAV Filters - open source ffmpeg based media splitter and decoders
nevcairiel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th April 2019, 01:53   #22  |  Link
mandarinka
Registered User
 
mandarinka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevcairiel View Post
But they stated themselves that they don't even know yet what patents are applicable. That means there could also be none.
Eh, I don't think that is quite correct. The list is not published/finalised, so it's probably a case of the usual business communication "we don't commit to anything yet". There are four major companies quoted as backers in their press release, so it is safe to assume that their IP for example will land there.
They say the list will be published when the call for other pool members ends...
mandarinka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th April 2019, 06:45   #23  |  Link
bstrobl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 55
VP9 has already existed for several years. Seems kind of convenient for them to pop up less than a year after AV1s introduction, while covering VP9 in their terms as well. If it just covered AV1 it may not seem that out of place but at this stage they have had enough time, especially since VP9 already had other patent pools pop up to try to claim their rights.
bstrobl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th April 2019, 07:56   #24  |  Link
soresu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Swansea, Wales, UK
Posts: 154
AV1 was openly developed, with all tools expressed in the specification.

The standardisation process towards bit sream freeze was telegraphed well in advance for any interested patent parties to have found applicable patents and demanded compensation or withdrawl.
For this consortium to have waited until software and hardware was well into development implies a definitive desire to increase the pressure on AOMedia contributors in order to defray the cost of said software and hardware development.

I think it does bare in mind remembering that not only Google was supposed to be contributing legal protection to AV1 by reviewing patent IP, there were other significant parties involved like Cisco and Microsoft.
Wasnt ANS left out of AV1 because of precisely this problem?
soresu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th April 2019, 08:02   #25  |  Link
soresu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Swansea, Wales, UK
Posts: 154
I guess at least there is no small corporate backing behind AOMedia to provide legal assistance here, the founding members alone can contribute a very significant defence if needed, and I would assume their own IP review pre bit stream freeze was probably significant enough to address any less than iron clad attempt to shake them down.
soresu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th April 2019, 10:08   #26  |  Link
Quikee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by soresu View Post
Wasn't ANS left out of AV1 because of precisely this problem?
No.. it was left out because it wasn't a good fit for hardware. But Google filed a patent for "ANS in video compression", which is what pissed people of.
Quikee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th April 2019, 19:23   #27  |  Link
utack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 55
https://aomedia.org/the-alliance-for...dia-statement/
utack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th April 2019, 23:54   #28  |  Link
mandarinka
Registered User
 
mandarinka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by soresu View Post
Wasnt ANS left out of AV1 because of precisely this problem?
I don't think so. What I heard is that the guy behind it wanted to contribute it, but actually, Google at the same time he was in the AV1 development discussions with them, they tried to patent his idea for themselves behind his back (like, wtf?!). I'm not sure if he even succeeded at preventing that, but if the snafu kept ANS out, it was not the inventor's fault.
mandarinka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th April 2019, 23:36   #29  |  Link
dapperdan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 194
https://xiphmont.dreamwidth.org/84214.html

Xiphmont's post about the ANS patent thing has all the nuance that gets lost in the retelling of this story.
dapperdan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th April 2019, 02:44   #30  |  Link
soresu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Swansea, Wales, UK
Posts: 154
Interesting read about the performance claims not adding up, I got the initial impression that it was some big advance in efficiency over CABAC with less complexity.

As you say it pays to read up on these things, and yes I always did get Monty's impression that Google's patent filing was specifically a pre-emptive protection against patent trolling over AV1, as indeed alot of AOMedia's mandate was during AV1s initial development.
soresu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th April 2019, 20:25   #31  |  Link
mandarinka
Registered User
 
mandarinka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by dapperdan View Post
https://xiphmont.dreamwidth.org/84214.html

Xiphmont's post about the ANS patent thing has all the nuance that gets lost in the retelling of this story.
For saying how he doesn't want to defend Google he sure seems to. It baffled me a bit when he basically addressed the whole matter by telling Duda to shut up go smoke cannabis instead. Maybe it's the classical case of poor joke that wasn't really meant to offend but was too dumb, but well... it involuntarily kind of started shifting my impression of the guy as I read that.

Also I think that the compression efficiency or usefulness of the algorithm has zero importance in the matter of Google's patenting attempt at all, so why bring it up.
mandarinka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th April 2019, 11:37   #32  |  Link
schweinsz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by mandarinka View Post
I'm not sure it's as clear-cut. For example, the alt-ref thing in VP9/AV1 is really a copy of b-frame mechanism that is designed in a roundabout way to not look totally like b-frames, at a glance. Is that an example of "quite happy to avoid IP that's not available under terms they can accept" in a good sense? Sounds more like use the idea but dodge the responsibility to me, but well, maybe they changed enough details to get away with it.
As for the unclearness - it's perfectly possible the patents just weren't discovered or they weren't careful enough in trying to stay clear. I don't think it's a responsibility of patent holder to reach out to everybody in the world to informa them about it, that's pretty much not viable after all.
Also you call a video compression patent a monopoly and paint is as some injustice. But look at it from the inventor's point of view. They invested money and work. They are probably willing to offer it to multiple parties and not having a monopoly. But Google/AOM will only accept it for free. How can you think that refusing to grant the technology to them in such a situation is unjust? AOM's insistence of being royalty free is their choice, they have no right to push that onto IP holders that aren't okay with that. It's normal to want to be compensated for your property/work.

I think we are starting to hijack this thread though, so better stop this debate (which has been here over and over in the past).
The b-frame is invented more 30 years ago, while the multiple references and the multiple hypothesis inter prediction are invented more than 20 years ago. To the best of my knowledge, the hierarchical b coding structure is invented more than 24 years ago.
schweinsz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2020, 10:30   #33  |  Link
hajj_3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 962
HEVC patent pool news: https://www.streamingmedia.com/Artic...ls-136123.aspx

Also 'unifiedpatents' has now challenged a total of 42% of Velos Media patent pool's h265 patents: https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insig...y-unpatentable

Last edited by hajj_3; 19th January 2020 at 11:47.
hajj_3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th April 2020, 10:26   #34  |  Link
hajj_3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 962
Sisvel has published a list of their patents.

List of VP9 patents: https://www.sisvel.com/images/docume...ntList_VP9.pdf
List of AV1 patents: https://www.sisvel.com/images/docume...ntList_AV1.pdf
hajj_3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th May 2020, 07:41   #35  |  Link
hajj_3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 962
2 companies have now licenced sisvel's patents: https://www.sisvel.com/news-events/n...nsing-platform
hajj_3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th May 2020, 23:28   #36  |  Link
benwaggoner
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 3,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by hajj_3 View Post
2 companies have now licenced sisvel's patents: https://www.sisvel.com/news-events/n...nsing-platform
I note that Mitsubishi Electric is the original holder of all the Xylene S.A. patents asserted in the docs, which are a good chunk of them.

I don't recall having heard about Tremmen Tecnologica. Their site is Spanish only and they don't have a Wikipedia entry even.
__________________
Ben Waggoner
Principal Video Specialist, Amazon Prime Video

My Compression Book
benwaggoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 22:07.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.