Re:Qualcomm statement regarding AOM licensing shenanigans wr...
by gjsman-1000 on Thursday November 17, 2022 @09:06AM
(#33639033)
Grabs popcorn
It will be interesting to see the fallout on this one. Will Qualcomm require licensing for AV1 implementers? How does this prevent AOM from retracting access to patents Qualcomm needs from other companies? Did Qualcomm literally approach every other company with private negotiations? And so on...
Re:Qualcomm statement regarding AOM licensing shenanigans wr...
by videoborat on Thursday November 17, 2022 @09:35AM
(#33639401)
Just one more AOM outsider (and major player in the video codec space) publicly stating that their patents in fact do read onto AV1. I wonder what patents AOM tried to sidestep in AV1 design if not the ones from Qualcomm, Dolby, Ericsson, InterDigital, Philips and Toshiba :)
Re:Qualcomm statement regarding AOM licensing shenanigans wr...
by Vt71fcAqt7 on Thursday November 17, 2022 @12:16PM
(#33642179)
It's basically Qualcomm's legal department trying to keep their patents; they can't actualy do anything to other AV1 implementers now that they have implemented it in Snapdragon 8 gen 2. If they try to sue let's say samsung, they will be sued back (most likely) by the whole AOM who hold way more av1 patents than Qualcomm. Thier patents are just marginaly more valuable now as they aren't shared between all of AOM. Essentially they are screwing everyone else over that contributed.
AV1 has some kind of patent-NATO thing where if you attack someone over AV1 patents they counter-attack with all their other patents, but does this count as an attack or would it only kick in if they sue someone?
Re:Qualcomm statement regarding AOM licensing shenanigans wr...
by Vt71fcAqt7 on Thursday November 17, 2022 @12:21PM
(#33642271)
This might be why they were so slow to add hardware av1 decoding to their SoC. I guess legal compromised and said "you can implement av1, but we're still keeping the patents" and now we're in this situation.
Re:Qualcomm statement regarding AOM licensing shenanigans wr...
by ksec on Thursday November 17, 2022 @12:55PM
(#33642834)
In 99.99% of cases for Smartphones, you are going to sign and pay Qualcomm for all of its license anyway. Including all patent in 3G/4G and 5G, as well as other wireless tech, Image, Sensor, Battery and of course including Video Codec patents.
What is interesting ( to me at least ), their new Video Engine IP in Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 did not include H.266 / VVC.
Re:Qualcomm statement regarding AOM licensing shenanigans wr...
by videoborat on Thursday November 17, 2022 @04:37PM
(#33646133)
Agree that's odd. I initially thought they'd delayed AV1 integration to match the VVC timeline but it seems the QC engineers are just generally slower than the ones working at Mediatek...
Re:Qualcomm statement regarding AOM licensing shenanigans wr...
by ksec on Friday November 18, 2022 @12:11PM
(#33657870)
AFAIK, the VVC Decoder in Mediatek are for TV only, not Mobile. So the power usage is quite different. But I did expect Qualcomm to have VVC since they promised it in 2020 and 2021.
It will be interesting to see the fallout on this one. Will Qualcomm require licensing for AV1 implementers? How does this prevent AOM from retracting access to patents Qualcomm needs from other companies? Did Qualcomm literally approach every other company with private negotiations? And so on...
That license requires making their AV1 patents free of use
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1520/
AV1 has some kind of patent-NATO thing where if you attack someone over AV1 patents they counter-attack with all their other patents, but does this count as an attack or would it only kick in if they sue someone?
What is interesting ( to me at least ), their new Video Engine IP in Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 did not include H.266 / VVC.