this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2026
623 points (98.4% liked)

Technology

83500 readers
2930 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
623
Firm quietly boosts H.264 streaming license fees from $100,000 up to staggering $4.5 million — backbone codec of the internet gets meteoric increase, AVC hikes follow disastrous H.265 licensing increa (www.tomshardware.com)
submitted 1 day ago by commander@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
132 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] raldone01@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (2 children)

Oh man. I hope Dolby looses. Patents are way too long and benefit so few that I think they shouldn't be justified/exist in society. Also some stuff should be decided in court to be essential technology and patents/claims should then be dissolved/voided.

[–] Paragone@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

I believe the error was in the AV1 license NOT having a "if you enforce patent-license-fees on this codec, THEN you can't use this codec" type of coercion..

( I may have got the logic wrong, but there's some kind of license that works that way, which other open codecs have used, apparently )

Just ignoring that predators exist .. provides NO protection from them.

You have to make your license-agreement break abusers, .. or you're just helping them.

_ /\ _

[–] Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 11 hours ago

I believe the error was in the AV1 license NOT having a “if you enforce patent-license-fees on this codec, THEN you can’t use this codec” type of coercion…

I thought those provisions were usually enforced among the members of a patent pool, to ensure that any licensing customer can trust in the pools word to not be shaken down a second time by an individual pool member later.

So since AM1 isn't forming a patent pool to sell licenses, and Dolby isn't part of the Alliance for Open Media, it wouldn't really apply either way, no?

Oh wait, actually there is something like this, see point 1.3 here: https://aomedia.org/license/patent-license/