229
this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2026
229 points (99.1% liked)
Technology
83222 readers
5038 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So just to be clear for all of you:
Dolby is not a creator of AV1, Dolby is not in charge of licensing decisions for AV1. All companies involved in HVEC and AV1 have not performed bait and switch.
What has happened is that Dolby alleges that they already have a patent on parts of what makes AV1 work. This may be an accident, or maybe someone stole Dolby’s tech. This may be something that can be fixed by changing how the software works, without breaking the file format.
It will be interesting to see how this one plays out.
Also, I’ve been saying it for 30 years at this point, and I will keep saying it: FUCK patents, software patents especially, and fuck the stupid system of capitalism for making them necessary
AV1 has been out almost ten years and Dolby's first case is with Snapchat? Bruh
Which is a damn good point. If you don't protect a patent in a reasonable time frame I believe you lose the right to protect it. If Dolby has had this patent for a long time, and allowed it to become part of a standard, it may be a quick dismissal of the case.
Thinking of trademarks? I'm not sure, but I feel like that is true. To quote a true asshole: "I'm just asking questions".
Trademarks I think are the most commonplace for this to happen, but I believe it applies to all IP. I don’t believe that any laws are written with specific timeframes but if the court feels that a right holder knew about and didn’t take action against an infringer within a “reasonable” time (as to be determined by the count based on the circumstances surrounding the case), then an implicit license is inferred.
If this was not done, it would encourage right holders to wait out infringement in order to achieve larger settlements.
No. Pretty sure it's true of patents too. Might depend on which court you're in.
Tyler Texas’s erasers just perked up. That court has cost parent troll victims billions.
"Spider-Man, Spider-Man - does whatever a spider can."
Oh, I’m not saying this to defend Dolby’s actions, IMHO and IANAL but this feels like a “see if this shit sticks” type of deal.
Maybe this is something specific that Snapchat’s implementation does and isn’t directly related to AV1 and the headline is clickbait? Hard for me to know.
I just wanted to point out that AV1’s consortium doesn’t seem to be rugpulling as some other commenters on here seem to feel.
Dolby: we have a patent that ug let's you do shit to a file so it comes out in another format. We own all formats now and forever!
Thats what ambiguity enables, a logical fallacy that allows evil corpos to do as they please. And thats basically capitalism, or even feudalism at this point.
Or "strategic ambiguity" as practiced by a certain country.