Technology

83500 readers

2930 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

L3s@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

technopagan@lemmy.world

L4s@lemmy.world

L3s@hackingne.ws

624

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

[–] 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/