this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2026
235 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

83896 readers
7368 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
235
AV1’s open, royalty-free promise in question as Dolby sues Snapchat over codec (arstechnica.com)
submitted 3 weeks ago by JohnWorks@sh.itjust.works to c/technology@lemmy.world
51 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 142 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

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

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 54 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

AV1 has been out almost ten years and Dolby's first case is with Snapchat? Bruh

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 21 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] WildPalmTree@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Thinking of trademarks? I'm not sure, but I feel like that is true. To quote a true asshole: "I'm just asking questions".

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 3 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

No. Pretty sure it's true of patents too. Might depend on which court you're in.

[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 weeks ago

Tyler Texas’s erasers just perked up. That court has cost parent troll victims billions.

[–] WildPalmTree@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

"Spider-Man, Spider-Man - does whatever a spider can."

[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 6 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 27 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

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!

[–] Virtvirt588@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 weeks ago

Or "strategic ambiguity" as practiced by a certain country.

[–] riskable@programming.dev 104 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Patents on software shouldn't exist!

[–] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 60 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Patents ~~on software~~ shouldn't exist!

This is my take.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 21 points 3 weeks ago

5 year patents should exist IMHO. I think that's a reasonable chance to monetise an invention. Short enough to remove the use of patents as munitions between companies.

After that it's open season and you've allowed society to use it in any way in return for that 5 year protection.

[–] CosmoNova@lemmy.world 12 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I agree. It‘s the only way to actually overcome capitalism. Same rules for all is important of course.

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

No patents ensures that if an individual does invent something, only corporations can profit off it because they can just put the inventor out of business by undercutting, rather than having to pay the inventor.

Unfortunately, they do protect corporations more than individual inventors purely because corporations have more R&D budget.

[–] ZephyrXero@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago

Seems like the solution is to only allow individuals to apply for patents, and organizations and their proxies may not

[–] pipe01@programming.dev 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

~~Patents on~~ software shouldn't exist

Fuck it

[–] Haaveilija@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

Pa~~te~~nts ~~on software~~ shouldn't exist

[–] ftbd@feddit.org 1 points 3 weeks ago

Come to Europe, then :)

[–] network_switch@lemmy.ml 57 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Screw Dolby. I'll only ever encode in AV1 and in the future AV2. HEVC won't ever be ubiquitous like h.264 and VVC has already had support dropped by Intel processors after only one generation of hardware support. 6 years after the standard was finalized and VVC is still practically non-existent in consumer hardware

[–] Rekall_Incorporated@piefed.social 14 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

For what it's worth, HEVC seems to have much better hardware support than AV1.

AV1 encodes are also extremely rare when it comes to unofficial content releases.

[–] Virtvirt588@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

Yep, it really seems that all that money goes into coehersion so everyone uses their proprietary format. It is hard to actually come across high quality video releases that are in AV1 - even if you prefer the loyalty free nature of AV1.

But in terms of hardware, AV1 is getting more popular. For one, it is a relatively new format.

[–] JohnWorks@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 weeks ago

Til Intel had and dropped support for VVC. Also TIL it's 6 years old I thought it was still in active development.

[–] db2@lemmy.world 39 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Rather, the AV1 specification was developed after many foundational video coding patents had already been filed, and AV1 incorporates technologies that are also present in HEVC.

Like file()

[–] Shirasho@lemmings.world 60 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

This wording is wild. They did not say that AV1 uses patented material - they said that AV1 includes some technologies that are in HEVC. Dolby doesn't have a case, and they know it. They are trying to use wording that twists the truth to make it sound like they are in the right.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 28 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Inventing lawyers was a mistake

[–] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 18 points 3 weeks ago

Yes, but it's also the natural conclusion to "so technically the rules say...."

[–] Cort@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I read it as Dolby saying av1 uses the same patented technology from hevc, and Dolby holds those patents.

[–] five82@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Even though the AV1 spec was finalized 8 years ago, the HEVC patent mess was well known back then. I know that AOM put a lot of effort into working around patent problems so it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Google, Amazon, Netflix, Meta, Apple and the rest of AOM all have a lot on the line if the patent trolls win.

Open video and audio codecs are a direct threat to Dolby's core business so this move isn't surprising unfortunately.

[–] veniasilente@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

We all knew this was going to happen one day or another.

Where's Theora these days, byw? Wasn't it the encoding blessed by the license druids?

[–] FG_3479@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Theora is an old and very inefficient codec. VP8, VP9, and now AV1 have succeeded it.

[–] veniasilente@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

But all of those are VPs are patent encumbered, right?

[–] FG_3479@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

They are not supposed to be but Sisvel claims they are.

[–] flying_sheep@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Because they always do, not because they have a legitimate claim.

[–] veniasilente@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

In the US system at least it matters not if your claim is legitimate, the mere fact that you can file it poses a severe risk.

Patent system needs fixing from the foundations up. Or even better, full abolition.

In the meantime, what's the better actually open codec to reencode to?

[–] flying_sheep@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago

AV1. Netvc didn't happen, and parts of Daala and Thor were integrated into AV1. Google has the only relevant patents and gave the world an irrevocable license to use it freely.

This is as close as you can get. The sisvel patent trolls will put their grubby fingers onto everything you can call “video codec”, and make up ways they can milk people stupid enough to pay them.

[–] HertzDentalBar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Fuck patents on software. May every person who applys for one be jabbed by the LA aids jabber.

[–] Lawnman23@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

Oddly specific reference is oddly specific…

[–] gnuplusmatt@reddthat.com 5 points 3 weeks ago

but I've been standardising my library on AV1

[–] JohnWorks@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 weeks ago

Maybe I should just reencode all my stuff in VVC 😮‍💨

[–] kieron115@startrek.website 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Why exactly are they targeting a non-governing member of the alliance?

[–] Rekall_Incorporated@piefed.social 15 points 3 weeks ago

Because Snap has less resources for a long legal fight than Google, Amazon and so on...

[–] Mwa@thelemmy.club 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

So not royalty-free?

[–] chillpanzee@lemmy.ml 28 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The license is royalty free. AOMedia requires it's contributors to contribute royalty free, and AOMedia has worked hard to ensure it doesn't infringe anyone else's IP, but that doesn't stop other companies (some patent trolls) from asserting "You can't do xyz without infringing some obscure patent I own." These companies (like Dolby) target the companies that license AV1, and say "You've infringed my IP. Pay me $x per product that implements AV1, or I will sue you for much greater damages." So AV1 really is licensed royalty free, what we have here is a third party that isn't part of AOMedia (that really liked making money the old way) trying to extract revenue on dubious claims of patent essentiality.

The fun part is that nobody really knows (or cares) whether AV1 is really infringing any IP. They know that the threat of litigation is likely to induce enough people to just pay that the whole charade is worth it. And perhaps ironically, the companies like Dolby want to litigate even less than the companies they are threatening because litigation tends to be a winner take all thing. If they lose, then nobody pays them; not even the companies they bullied into paying. The video codec IP world has operated this way for decades. This is what AOMedia hoped to change. It's Governing Members are some heavy hitters. If they were to defend AV1, they could easily out-muscle players like Dolby. That might happen, but these sorts of things play out over a very long time horizon.

[–] Mwa@thelemmy.club 1 points 3 weeks ago

Okay ty

[–] berty@feddit.org 0 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

The title is a bit misleading. What does that mean for the future of AV1?

[–] Sasquatch@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 weeks ago

if Dolby wins, everyone implementing AV1 (or maybe just parties that profit from it?) will have to pay Dobly royalties, even though AV1 is royalty-free

[–] Sasquatch@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 weeks ago

if Dolby wins, everyone implementing AV1 (or maybe just parties that profit from it?) will have to pay Dobly royalties, even though AV1 is royalty-free

load more comments
view more: next ›