Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Another Patent Pool Forms For HEVC

Posted by Soulskill on from the money-to-be-squeezed dept.

An anonymous reader writes: A new patent pool, dubbed HEVC Advance, has formed for the HEVC video codec. This pool offers separate licensing from the existing MPEG LA HEVC patent pool. In an article for CNET, Stephen Shankland writes, "HEVC Advance promises a 'transparent' licensing process, but so far it isn't sharing details except to say it's got 500 patents it describes as essential for using HEVC, that it plans to unveil its license in the third quarter, and that expected licensors include General Electric, Technicolor, Dolby, Philips and Mitsubishi Electric. The group's statement suggested that some patent holders weren't satisfied with the money they'd make through MPEG LA's license. One of HEVC Advance's goals is 'delivering a balanced business model that supports HEVC commercialization.' ... HEVC Advance and MPEG LA aren't detailing what led to two patent pools, an outcome that undermines MPEG LA's attempt to offer a convenient 'one-stop shop' for companies needing a license." Perhaps this will lead to increased adoption of royalty-free video codecs such as VP9. Monty Montgomery of Xiph has some further commentary.

11 of 68 comments (clear)

  1. So You are Saying by wisnoskij · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That to use a simple, SINGLE, encoding algorithm like HEVC takes licencing thousands of patents?

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:So You are Saying by HiThere · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, but it does mean you risk going bankrupt fighting an invalid patent.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:So You are Saying by king+neckbeard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That MPEG2 had hundreds of patents would suggest that there is a problem. That makes it sound as if basically every step had at least one patent, possibly more. If that's the case, then meaningful competition is going to be impossible.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    3. Re:So You are Saying by ColaMan · · Score: 3, Funny

      "method for adding two numbers using instructions and registers commonly available on x64 processors"

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    4. Re:So You are Saying by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 3, Informative

      To answer your question: Yes. Whatever you think of patents (personally I despise software patents and think they're a cancer on our industry), these are not single algorithms, nor are they in any way simple. This is very sophisticated software. At least scan through the Wikipedia entry linked in the summary to get a rough idea of the complexity of these monsters.

      Modern video formats are comprised of a vast collection of different algorithms and techniques, and part of the encoding process is determining how best to apply those various techniques to create the best compression while maintaining a specific desired perceptual quality. It's perhaps best to think of a video codec as a family of many different video encoding, decoding, and storage techniques.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  2. Daala by mlkj · · Score: 3

    May Daala save us all.

  3. DVD patents expiring by crow · · Score: 3, Informative

    At least the patents on DVDs are expiring if not already expired. The first DVD player was sold in 1996, and patents can be good for up to 20 years from the filing date, so it would seem that by late next year, all necessary patents should have expired. (Patents are only 17 years from the issue date, so any patents that were actually issued at the time of the first players would have expired.)

    I'm sure that they've added on patents for various RW formats, and probably for some new tricks in encoding, but that wouldn't impact playback.

    MP3 patents have mostly expired, though one US patent expires later this year.

    So for any application using MPEG-2 or MP3, you shouldn't be facing a big patent hurdle. If you want the lower bitrates found with newer codecs, the pain will be with us for a while to come.

    1. Re:DVD patents expiring by evilviper · · Score: 2

      At least the patents on DVDs are expiring if not already expired. The first DVD player was sold in 1996, and patents can be good for up to 20 years from the filing date, so it would seem that by late next year, all necessary patents should have expired.

      This is HORRIBLE legal advice. Patent laws were different before 1996, that's why MP3 patents are still around (and will be until 2017) despite the fact that specifications were published back in 1991!

      In the United States, "patents filed prior to 8 June 1995 expire 17 years after the publication date of the patent, but application extensions make it possible for a patent to issue" quite a few years after initial filing.

      MP3 patents have mostly expired, though one US patent expires later this year.

      I wish that was true, but it's certainly not:

      http://www.tunequest.org/a-big...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    2. Re:DVD patents expiring by crow · · Score: 2

      There are other MP3 patents that don't expire this year, but their validity is in question.

      And the surviving patents are, in most cases, USA only.

  4. Re:Its a shame WebM sucks by SeaFox · · Score: 4, Informative

    Has anybody tried the WebM encoders? They STINK, its either a bunch of CLI gobbledygook or its some half assed support in some other encoder.

    If you've talked to anyone on the pirating scene (the ones who actually know what they're doing), controlling x264 through command line is normal. Trying to use a GUI on an encoding test for an anime fansubbing group gets you laughed at.

  5. Re:Its a shame WebM sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Anyone doing any kind of serious work with an encoder (bulk especially) would laugh at you for the "gobbledygook" comment. In order for people to be able to enjoy videos in a format, we need these tools to give them things to watch. Without efficient CLI commands, your codec is nigh on useless. And for personal use it's also largely irrelevant; users use what their camera does, which is probably calling that CLI command, or the even more technical APIs those interfaces expose. GUI work for video editing is important, but once you have your clip you still need those tools for your GUI to even function.