MPEG-LA announces VC-1 licensing terms

[zambelli]

MPEG-LA news release:
http://www.mpegla.com/news/n_06-08-17_pr.pdf

VC-1 homepage:
http://www.mpegla.com/pid/vc1/

A good 3rd party summary:
http://www.emedialive.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=11741

The VC-1 essential patent holders currently include DAEWOO Electronics Corporation, France Telecom, societe anonyme, Fujitsu Limited, Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., LG Electronics Inc., Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. (Panasonic), Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Microsoft Corporation, Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation (NTT), Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Sharp Corporation, Sony Corporation, Telenor ASA, Toshiba Corporation, and Victor Company of Japan, Limited (JVC).

[zambelli]

Also, Microsoft has updated its own Windows Media Components licensing terms:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/licensing/agreements.aspx

Anyway... Most of this stuff doesn't really affect end users, so don't worry about it unless you're already a WM licensee or plan on developing technology utilizing VC-1 in the future. :) I just thought I'd post it as FYI.

[bond]

Anyway... Most of this stuff doesn't really affect end users, so don't worry about it unless you're already a WM licensee or plan on developing technology utilizing VC-1 in the future. :) I just thought I'd post it as FYI.zambelli, the doom9 forum sees itself as more than just a forum for endusers wanting to encode. we are deeply interested in encoding technologies and everything that surrounds them, eg development, patents and licensing terms

that said, thanks a lot for pointing out those very important informations!

its kinda shocking that hddvd/bluray added mandatory vc-1 support to their specs without even knowing what it will cost (not that i didnt point this out before, but i guess they dont care about my opinion :D )

its time to cross check with the avc/h.264 and mpeg-4 asp (as vc-1 imho is between those) licensing terms i guess

[GodofaGap]

ts kinda shocking that hddvd/bluray added mandatory vc-1 support to their specs without even knowing what it will cost (not that i didnt point this out before, but i guess they dont care about my opinion )

You make the assumption that they knew as much as you did. I'm pretty sure that the licensing costs of VC-1 were discussed between Blu-Ray/HD-DVD associations and Microsoft et al. That doesn't mean they have to make public announcements about this.

[pwimmer]

So below 100000 sold units, the encoders/decoders are free. This is also true for H.264 (http://www.mpegla.com/avc/AVC_TermsSummary.pdf).

Astonishingly, the far more simple MPEG-2 decoder costs $2.5 per unit (http://www.mpegla.com/m2/m2web_licenseterms.ppt)

[bond]

ok after analysing the vc-1 and h.264 licensing costs: vc-1 is more expensive!

most licenses are identical, but the maximum fees possible are higher for vc-1

that said, why use vc-1 when h.264 is a better format and cheaper ;)

[zambelli]

ok after analysing the vc-1 and h.264 licensing costs: vc-1 is more expensive!
most licenses are identical, but the maximum fees possible are higher for vc-1
While the royalty caps for VC-1 start at a higher level than the respective H.264/AVC caps, the caps for both technologies are only relevant to very highest volume distributors. For example, H.264's codec cap for 2006 applies when over 25 million units are shipped. VC-1's codec cap for 2006 applies when over 40 million units are shipped. H.264's codec caps increase over time and will equal VC-1's codec caps in 2009. The participation fee caps for H.264 and VC-1 align in 2007.

On the other end, the cost of a VC-1 codec unit matches the H.264/AVC rate exactly.

that said, why use vc-1 when h.264 is a better format and cheaper ;)
That depends on your definition of "better". As discussed here (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=864209#post864209), it doesn't all boil down to "image A looks better than image B at the same bitrate". Overall cost, support, development potential, tools, etc - it all counts.

[bond]

hehe this one might explain the hddvd/bluray decision:

Royalties are payable for VC-1 products from January 1, 2006 forward. Under separate agreement, Microsoft will pay royalties for the period prior to January 1, 2006.m$ pays the royalties, but hey, only this year :D


The participation fee caps for H.264 and VC-1 align in 2007. sorry, but thats not true

in fact for example in the PC products field it says the following:
AVC: "The maximum annual royalty (“cap”) for an enterprise is $3.5 million per year in 2005-2006, $4.25 million per year in 2007-08 and $5 million per year in 2009-10."
VC-1: "Maximum annual royalty (“Cap”) payable by an enterprise: $8M per year: 2006-2010"

where do you see the 2007? where do you see that they align? where do you see the 25/40 million units figure you mentioned?

On the other end, the cost of a VC-1 codec unit matches the H.264/AVC rate exactly.yeah, in parts vc-1 and avc cost the same, which is already a small revolution for me, as i always thought that vc-1, being imho technically (only seeing the standard and not the rest you mentioned) worse then avc, would be cheaper

interpreting the licensing fees i would guess that some patent holders in both vc-1 and avc might want to harm vc-1 as they want to push avc

[GodofaGap]

interpreting the licensing fees i would guess that some patent holders in both vc-1 and avc might want to harm vc-1 as they want to push avc
Why would they want to do that? VC1 is a cashcow already since every HD-player will need to support it.

I don't see why the annual caps for integration in an OS is so important? Microsoft is not even allowed to bundle their OS with WMP in Europe, it isn't diificult to imagine what would happen if they intergrated a VC-1 decoder in their OS. :)

[pwimmer]

Microsoft is not even allowed to bundle their OS with WMP in Europe

Wrong. It's true they offer a Windows edition without WMP in Europe, but nobody ever bought it.

[pwimmer]

I wonder if HD-DVD player manufacturers actually have to pay license fees for both H.264 and VC-1. I assume most patents apply to both coding standards, so why should one pay twice for the same patents?

[GodofaGap]

Wrong. It's true they offer a Windows edition without WMP in Europe, but nobody ever bought it.

I'm sorry for my inaccurateness but I thought it would be clear to what I was aiming. MS was fined for several million dollars because they only offered Windows version with WMP (+other matters). If they now would provide VC-1 intergration into their OS, normally speaking a similar case could be held unless a VC-1 free version was also provided.

Now, I don't see why VC-1 decoding would need to be integrated in the OS, since just the decoder alone won't guarantee any kind of playback of anything and it would seem to be rather trivial to offer an decoder as separate download (which would circumvent the higher cap altogether).

[zambelli]

hehe this one might explain the hddvd/bluray decision:
m$ pays the royalties, but hey, only this year :D
You're misinterpreting that section. It's about Microsoft eating up the cost of VC-1 before it was approved as a SMPTE standard. How many HD-DVD and BluRay units do you know that shipped before January 1, 2006?

[zambelli]

Now, I don't see why VC-1 decoding would need to be integrated in the OS, since just the decoder alone won't guarantee any kind of playback of anything and it would seem to be rather trivial to offer an decoder as separate download (which would circumvent the higher cap altogether).
You're forgetting that WMV9 is Microsoft's implementation of VC-1. It's already in the OS (Main Profile out of the box, Advanced Profile from the web). Vista will most certainly ship with a fully compliant VC-1 decoder - because that's what WMV is.

[GodofaGap]

I'm not sure what "as part of an operating system" means. I find it an unclear term since Windows will work fine without WMP. IMO WMP (and the decoders) is software bundled with the OS, but perhaps this is what is intended in the first place. Heh, lawyer talk. :S

[bond]

You're misinterpreting that section. It's about Microsoft eating up the cost of VC-1 before it was approved as a SMPTE standard. How many HD-DVD and BluRay units do you know that shipped before January 1, 2006?hm i meant it in the sense that m$ propably told the hddvd/bluray organisations (and everyone else wanting to use vc-1/wmv!) that all they need to pay for vc-1 is what m$ charges (which was obviously not much). now it turns out this is only valid till the end of this year, which i guess not many thought about

[GodofaGap]

Microsoft won't pay anything this year. It says 'prior to 2006', and as far as I am aware we are already in august 2006. :)

[bond]

ups indeed ;)

[oibaf]

Sorry for necromancying a 18 years old thread, but it's still pertinent. :)

In the meantime, MPEG LA became VIA LA, VC-1 patent list is now available at https://www.via-la.com/licensing-2/vc-1/vc-1-patent-list/

Most of the patents already expired.

To note, the last patent in Europe should expire in less than 6 months (2024-11-08). Here are all the remaining European patents still pending, with their expected (according to Google Patents) expiration date:

EP 1,528,812 2024-08-11
EP 2,290,991 2024-08-11
EP 1,661,387 2024-09-02
EP 1,658,726 2024-09-03
EP 1,665,761 2024-09-03
EP 1,656,793 2024-09-03
EP 1,656,794 2024-09-03
EP 2,285,113 2024-09-03
EP 2,285,114 2024-09-03
EP 2,285,115 2024-09-03
EP 2,323,398 2024-09-03
EP 2,323,399 2024-09-03
EP 2,323,406 2024-09-03
EP 2,451,161 2024-09-03
EP 2,466,894 2024-09-03
EP 2,466,895 2024-09-03
EP 1,549,064 2024-11-08

Enjoy! :)

[kurkosdr]

I wonder if HD-DVD player manufacturers actually have to pay license fees for both H.264 and VC-1. I assume most patents apply to both coding standards, so why should one pay twice for the same patents?
When a patent holder licenses a patent, they license it for a specific embodiment of the invention. This means that if you have a "golden" patent fundamental to modern video compression, you get to collect 3 royalties (VC-1, H.264, H.265) from a single UHD Blu-Ray player.

This is not illegal btw, the inventor can demand to be compensated for every embodiment of the invention your product includes.

[kurkosdr]

Sorry for necromancying a 18 years old thread, but it's still pertinent. :)

In the meantime, MPEG LA became VIA LA, VC-1 patent list is now available at https://www.via-la.com/licensing-2/vc-1/vc-1-patent-list/

Most of the patents already expired.

To note, the last patent in Europe should expire in less than 6 months (2024-11-08). Here are all the remaining European patents still pending, with their expected (according to Google Patents) expiration date:

EP 1,528,812 2024-08-11
EP 2,290,991 2024-08-11
EP 1,661,387 2024-09-02
EP 1,658,726 2024-09-03
EP 1,665,761 2024-09-03
EP 1,656,793 2024-09-03
EP 1,656,794 2024-09-03
EP 2,285,113 2024-09-03
EP 2,285,114 2024-09-03
EP 2,285,115 2024-09-03
EP 2,323,398 2024-09-03
EP 2,323,399 2024-09-03
EP 2,323,406 2024-09-03
EP 2,451,161 2024-09-03
EP 2,466,894 2024-09-03
EP 2,466,895 2024-09-03
EP 1,549,064 2024-11-08

Enjoy! :)
So, at least in the EU, VC-1 will finally fulfil its original purpose, which is to become a modern-ish standard with no patent assertions.

BTW can you do this for the US too? Generally, how do you run the patents through Google patents? I would do it manually but really don't have the time in my life right now and won't for some time.

I think it's still important because we may "soon" have a royalty-free standard for every category:
- Blu-Ray (including BD9) -> VC-1
- Media players and set-top-boxes -> MPEG4 ASP (note: still has unexpired patents in Brazil, but they expire sometime in 2026)
- Web browsers -> VP8 (and VP9 and AV1 if you don't believe Sisvel's assertions, but that's a risk some businesses don't want to take)

[oibaf]

Here it is all remaining patents sorted by their expiration dates (on the first field; the second field is the priority date), according to Google Patents. The patent is clickable.
2024-11-08 : 2003-11-13 : EP 1,549,064 (https://patents.google.com/patent/EP1549064/en)
2024-11-12 : 2003-11-13 : CN 100568970 (https://patents.google.com/patent/CN100568970/en)
2024-11-12 : 2003-11-13 : JP 4,928,726 (https://patents.google.com/patent/JP4928726/en)
2024-12-11 : 2003-09-07 : US 7,369,709 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7369709/en)
2024-12-24 : 2001-12-17 : US 7,200,275 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7200275/en)
2025-02-01 : 2001-12-17 : US 7,120,197 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7120197/en)
2025-02-10 : 2003-09-07 : US 7,162,093 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7162093/en)
2025-02-18 : 2002-04-10 : US 7,116,831 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7116831/en)
2025-02-23 : 2002-05-03 : US 7,277,486 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7277486/en)
2025-03-17 : 2002-04-10 : US 7,110,459 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7110459/en)
2025-04-14 : 2003-07-18 : US 7,426,308 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7426308/en)
2025-04-20 : 2001-12-17 : US 7,266,149 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7266149/en)
2025-05-02 : 2004-05-07 : US 9,398,299 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US9398299/en)
2025-05-02 : 2004-05-07 : US 9,628,801 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US9628801/en)
2025-05-02 : 2004-05-07 : US 9,948,955 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US9948955/en)
2025-05-04 : 2002-05-01 : US 7,319,415 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7319415/en)
2025-05-08 : 2004-05-07 : CN 100401780C (https://patents.google.com/patent/CN100401780C/en)
2025-05-12 : 2003-09-07 : US 8,625,680 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8625680/en)
2025-05-16 : 2002-01-31 : US 7,561,623 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7561623/en)
2025-06-01 : 2002-04-10 : US 7,305,034 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7305034/en)
2025-07-05 : 2002-05-03 : US 7,463,684 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7463684/en)
2025-07-20 : 2002-04-19 : US 7,248,740 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7248740/en)
2025-07-22 : 2002-05-02 : US 7,242,713 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7242713/en)
2025-08-07 : 2003-07-15 : US 7,471,726 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7471726/en)
2025-09-01 : 2001-06-15 : US 8,233,528 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8233528/en)
2025-09-04 : 2001-06-15 : US 8,243,791 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8243791/en)
2025-10-05 : 2001-09-12 : US 8,184,722 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8184722/en)
2025-10-25 : 2002-01-31 : US 8,208,749 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8208749/en)
2025-10-28 : 2003-07-18 : US 8,917,768 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8917768/en)
2025-12-07 : 2002-01-22 : US 7,505,485 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7505485/en)
2025-12-08 : 2002-01-05 : US 8,948,268 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8948268/en)
2025-12-13 : 2005-01-11 : CN 101099388 (https://patents.google.com/patent/CN101099388/en)
2026-01-01 : 2002-09-04 : US 7,379,496 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7379496/en)
2026-01-05 : 2003-07-18 : US 7,499,495 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7499495/en)
2026-02-16 : 2003-07-18 : US 7,738,554 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7738554/en)
2026-04-03 : 2003-07-18 : US 8,218,624 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8218624/en)
2026-04-06 : 2003-09-07 : US 7,317,839 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7317839/en)
2026-05-09 : 2001-09-12 : US 7,929,616 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7929616/en)
2026-05-10 : 2003-09-07 : US 7,469,011 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7469011/en)
2026-06-06 : 2001-09-12 : US 7,944,977 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7944977/en)
2026-06-22 : 2003-09-07 : US 7,529,302 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7529302/en)
2026-07-04 : 2001-09-12 : US 7,961,793 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7961793/en)
2026-07-13 : 2003-09-07 : US 7,352,905 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7352905/en)
2026-07-19 : 2003-09-07 : US 7,412,102 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7412102/en)
2026-08-27 : 2002-04-10 : US 7,620,109 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7620109/en)
2026-10-19 : 2003-09-07 : US 8,116,380 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8116380/en)
2026-11-25 : 2003-07-18 : US 7,580,584 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7580584/en)
2027-01-02 : 2003-09-07 : US 7,680,185 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7680185/en)
2027-01-27 : 2001-12-17 : US 8,817,868 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8817868/en)
2027-03-11 : 2003-07-18 : US 7,502,415 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7502415/en)
2027-04-25 : 2003-09-07 : US 7,590,179 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7590179/en)
2027-06-04 : 2003-09-07 : US 8,345,754 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8345754/en)
2027-06-18 : 2003-09-07 : US 7,567,617 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7567617/en)
2027-07-08 : 2004-10-06 : US 7,822,123 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7822123/en)
2027-08-09 : 2002-05-03 : US 7,609,767 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7609767/en)
2027-08-09 : 2003-09-07 : US 7,961,786 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7961786/en)
2027-08-30 : 2003-09-07 : US 8,107,531 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8107531/en)
2027-09-20 : 2003-09-07 : US 7,609,762 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7609762/en)
2027-10-11 : 2003-09-07 : US 8,009,739 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8009739/en)
2027-10-15 : 2004-10-06 : US 8,243,820 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8243820/en)
2027-10-19 : 2003-09-07 : US 8,014,450 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8014450/en)
2027-12-03 : 2003-09-07 : US 8,687,709 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8687709/en)
2027-12-07 : 2003-09-07 : US 8,085,844 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8085844/en)
2027-12-10 : 2003-09-07 : US 7,577,200 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7577200/en)
2027-12-10 : 2003-09-07 : US 7,630,438 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7630438/en)
2027-12-22 : 2003-09-07 : US 8,625,669 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8625669/en)
2027-12-29 : 2003-09-07 : US 7,924,920 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7924920/en)
2028-01-01 : 2003-09-07 : US 7,782,954 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7782954/en)
2028-01-14 : 2003-09-07 : US 7,577,198 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7577198/en)
2028-02-10 : 2003-09-07 : US 7,924,921 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7924921/en)
2028-02-22 : 2003-09-07 : US 7,623,574 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7623574/en)
2028-04-08 : 2003-07-18 : US 7,609,763 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7609763/en)
2028-04-13 : 2003-09-07 : US 7,606,308 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7606308/en)
2028-04-29 : 2003-09-07 : US 7,664,177 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7664177/en)
2028-04-30 : 2003-09-07 : US 7,599,438 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7599438/en)
2028-05-04 : 2003-09-07 : US 7,688,894 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7688894/en)
2028-05-19 : 2003-09-07 : US 7,620,106 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7620106/en)
2028-05-22 : 2003-07-18 : US 7,830,963 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7830963/en)
2028-06-03 : 2003-09-07 : US 7,616,692 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7616692/en)
2028-06-19 : 2003-09-07 : US 7,606,311 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7606311/en)
2028-07-17 : 2003-11-13 : US 7,839,930 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7839930/en)
2028-08-24 : 2003-04-08 : US 8,428,141 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8428141/en)
2028-10-14 : 2003-09-07 : US 7,852,919 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7852919/en)
2028-11-23 : 2003-09-07 : US 7,852,936 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7852936/en)
2029-02-22 : 2004-05-07 : US 7,894,530 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7894530/en)
2029-07-24 : 2004-10-06 : US 7,839,933 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7839933/en)
2031-05-22 : 2001-03-02 : US 8,374,237 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8374237/en)
2033-01-09 : 2004-10-06 : US 9,071,847 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US9071847/en)
????-??-?? : 1997-07-16 : BR 9816272 (https://patents.google.com/patent/BRPI9816272/en)
????-??-?? : 2000-04-14 : BR PI0109962-0 (https://patents.google.com/patent/BRPI0109962/en)
????-??-?? : 2001-09-12 : BR PI0205988-6 (https://patents.google.com/patent/BRPI0205988/en)
????-??-?? : 2004-05-07 : TW I268714 (https://patents.google.com/patent/TWI268714/en)
????-??-?? : ????-??-?? : IN 313324
????-??-?? : ????-??-?? : KR 1,122,898

[hajj_3]

Here it is all the remaining VC-1 patents:

BR PI0304568-4
US 7,894,530
US 8,374,237
US 7,317,839
US 7,352,905
US 7,379,496
US 7,412,102
US 7,469,011
US 7,499,495
US 7,502,415
US 7,505,485
US 7,529,302
US 7,567,617
US 7,577,198
US 7,577,200
US 7,580,584
US 7,590,179
US 7,599,438
US 7,606,308
US 7,606,311
US 7,609,762
US 7,609,763
US 7,609,767
US 7,616,692
US 7,620,106
US 7,620,109
US 7,623,574
US 7,630,438
US 7,664,177
US 7,680,185
US 7,688,894
US 7,738,554
US 7,782,954
US 7,822,123
US 7,830,963
US 7,839,930
US 7,839,933
US 7,852,919
US 7,852,936
US 7,924,920
US 7,924,921
US 7,961,786
US 8,009,739
US 8,014,450
US 8,085,844
US 8,107,531
US 8,116,380
US 8,218,624
US 8,243,820
US 8,345,754
US 8,625,669
US 8,687,709
US 8,917,768 - Exp. Oct 27, 2025
US 9,071,847
BR PI0205988-6
US 7,929,616
US 7,944,977
US 7,961,793
US 8,184,722 - Exp. Oct 4, 2025
BR 9816272
US 8,948,268
BR PI0109962-0
CN 101099388
US 8,233,528 - Exp Sep 1, 2025
US 8,243,791 - Exp Sep 4, 2025
US 8,428,141

[benwaggoner]

So, at least in the EU, VC-1 will finally fulfil its original purpose, which is to become a modern-ish standard with no patent assertions.
Ha!

And it certainly could be a useful basis for further development. VC-1 with just a better in-loop deblocking filter plus arithmetic entropy coding could be in H.264 High Profile territory.

[kurkosdr]

Ha!

And it certainly could be a useful basis for further development. VC-1 with just a better in-loop deblocking filter plus arithmetic entropy coding could be in H.264 High Profile territory.
No, it can't be, the big corporations that care about royalty-free video standards (Google, Meta, Netflix, Twitch) are all headquartered in the US and serve a lot of video to US viewers. So, from their perspective, VC-1 is royalty-encumbered and so would be any further development of it. Even corporations outside the US such as DailyMotion serve a lot of video to US viewers. You may get some small hobby project but that's it.

The practical benefit here is that you can put VC-1 video in a BD9 or Blu-ray and you won't have to pay patent royalties for VC-1 unless you are exporting/selling to US, Brazil, or China. Another benefit is that Linux distros not headquartered in US, Brazil, or China can bundle a VC-1 decoder and encoder even if they are headquartered in a country that enforces software patents.

[benwaggoner]

No, it can't be, the big corporations that care about royalty-free video standards (Google, Meta, Netflix, Twitch) are all headquartered in the US and serve a lot of video to US viewers. So, from their perspective, VC-1 is royalty-encumbered and so would be any further development of it. Even corporations outside the US such as DailyMotion serve a lot of video to US viewers. You may get some small hobby project but that's it.
This speculation is about what could happen after the last VC-1 patents have expired.

The practical benefit here is that you can put VC-1 video in a BD9 or Blu-ray and you won't have to pay patent royalties for VC-1 unless you are exporting/selling to US, Brazil, or China. Another benefit is that Linux distros not headquartered in US, Brazil, or China can bundle a VC-1 decoder and encoder even if they are headquartered in a country that enforces software patents.
VC-1 decoders have been supported in pretty much all open source media players and HW decoders for many years now. I think we might see some HW decoders start dropping them from lack of interest at some point. But drop a VC-1 .wmv on pretty much anything that can play video formats and it'll play.