h.264 patent

[plonk420]

and don't forget the h.264 patent pool JUST decided to shit the bed even harder :D

https://videocardz.com/newz/h-264-streaming-license-fees-were-raised-to-as-much-as-4-5-million-open-standards-now-look-even-more-attractive

[birdie]

and don't forget the h.264 patent pool JUST decided to shit the bed even harder :D

https://videocardz.com/newz/h-264-streaming-license-fees-were-raised-to-as-much-as-4-5-million-open-standards-now-look-even-more-attractive

Collecting the final royalties before the remaining patents expire.

[ksec]

Collecting the final royalties before the remaining patents expire.

It is only for new companies who did not join before the current pricing scheme *when asked*. i.e they were given the opportunity to join using older scheme.

Most companies are grandfathered in.

Post 2026 there are may be 6 patents left on the H.264 High Profile List. Half of them are SVC related. There other three unknown.

Active Patents are only in US and Brazil.

We will soon have a true patent free video codec that is half decent. With ample of room to innovate on.

[kurkosdr]

It is only for new companies who did not join before the current pricing scheme *when asked*. i.e they were given the opportunity to join using older scheme.
Problem is, if you are a college putting up video courses on a website tomorrow (and have never done this before), you don't have a "grandfathered" license, since you never had anything to do with H.264 or video streaming in general before. Similarly, if you are launching a competitor to Twitch tomorrow or (more likely) a new OTT service, you don't have a grandfathered license. This is the problem here: the new pricing scheme is unfair to new market entrants since it heavily favors incumbents with 'grandfathered" licenses, but the law says all this is "fair" and "reasonable" and "non-discriminatory", somehow.

Post 2026 there are may be 6 patents left on the H.264 High Profile List. Half of them are SVC related. There other three unknown.

Active Patents are only in US and Brazil.
The number of patents left doesn't matter, even if there is a single patent relevant to High Profile, they can charge whatever "FRAND" royalties they want because the "strength" of that single patent may be deemed to be high:
"Many of its patents have expired, but patent licensing attorney Jim Harlan told Streaming Media that the expiration of a large share of a portfolio doesn’t automatically eliminate licensing obligations. Courts evaluating fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) rates still consider the strength and remaining life of active patents, not just their quantity, Harlan said." (source (https://www.tomshardware.com/service-providers/streaming/h264-streaming-license-fees-jump-from-100000-to-4-5-million))

Also, shouldn't all that discussion about H.264 licensing and royalties be in a topic under the "MPEG-4 AVC / H.264" sub-forum?

[Hellboy.]

If you remove the code for those 6 patents you can use H.264 for free? Just curiosity, I don't even know for what are those patents.

[Blue_MiSfit]

Good question, can those features simply be disabled in x264 or are they fundamental to the bitstream?

[ksec]

Good question, can those features simply be disabled in x264 or are they fundamental to the bitstream?

Depends but high likely yes.
H.264 Basic and Mainline should be patent free. It is the high profile that is not.

[ksec]

Problem is, if you are a college putting up video courses on a website tomorrow (and have never done this before), you don't have a "grandfathered" license, since you never had anything to do with H.264 or video streaming in general before. Similarly, if you are launching a competitor to Twitch tomorrow or (more likely) a new OTT service, you don't have a grandfathered license. This is the problem here: the new pricing scheme is unfair to new market entrants since it heavily favors incumbents with 'grandfathered" licenses, but the law says all this is "fair" and "reasonable" and "non-discriminatory", somehow.


The number of patents left doesn't matter, even if there is a single patent relevant to High Profile, they can charge whatever "FRAND" royalties they want because the "strength" of that single patent may be deemed to be high:
"Many of its patents have expired, but patent licensing attorney Jim Harlan told Streaming Media that the expiration of a large share of a portfolio doesn’t automatically eliminate licensing obligations. Courts evaluating fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) rates still consider the strength and remaining life of active patents, not just their quantity, Harlan said." (source (https://www.tomshardware.com/service-providers/streaming/h264-streaming-license-fees-jump-from-100000-to-4-5-million))

Also, shouldn't all that discussion about H.264 licensing and royalties be in a topic under the "MPEG-4 AVC / H.264" sub-forum?

Only if you are in US, and only if you are using High Profile, and only if you reach certain scale before 2027. Which is when most of it ends.

A patent lawyer opinion on FRAND is highly likely to be biased and not tested in court. I remember there was a case in MPEG 2 era that disputed this.

And yes, you could use H.263 if you really want it to be safe.