Sisvel patent pools formed for VP9 and AV1

[kurkosdr]

Originally Posted by Avclover

The next patent pool including AV1 about to start: https://accessadvance.com/2025/01/16...market-demand/

This means there are now three competing patent pools asking for money for "royalty-free" AV1...

And the fact none of those patent pools will go after the biggest user of AV1 (Google) tells you a lot about the sincerity behind those patent pools (and patent claims therein).

That said, OEMs like Samsung will pay up anyway because they are very risk-averse when it comes to IP. They are used to paying various royalties not just for video compression but also for wireless communications, storage, and wireless charging, so it's just another royalty for them.

So, everyone is happy, I guess. Google gets to stream AV1 without paying royalties to any patent pool, and Sisvel and Access Advance get to collect royalties from OEMs.

[hajj_3]

Originally Posted by hajj_3

28 avanci patent licensing pool licensors now. still no list of patents published or licensing cost.

34 now.

[oibaf]

Originally Posted by kurkosdr

And the fact none of those patent pools will go after the biggest user of AV1 (Google) tells you a lot about the sincerity behind those patent pools (and patent claims therein).

That said, OEMs like Samsung will pay up anyway because they are very risk-averse when it comes to IP. They are used to paying various royalties not just for video compression but also for wireless communications, storage, and wireless charging, so it's just another royalty for them.

So, everyone is happy, I guess. Google gets to stream AV1 without paying royalties to any patent pool, and Sisvel and Access Advance get to collect royalties from OEMs.

Any source on who is paying or not paying these licenses?
Where did you find out that Google is not paying, while Samsung is paying?

[rwill]

Originally Posted by kurkosdr

And the fact none of those patent pools will go after the biggest user of AV1 (Google) tells you a lot about the sincerity behind those patent pools (and patent claims therein).

Any source on who the patent pools will go after and who not?

[kurkosdr]

Originally Posted by oibaf

Any source on who is paying or not paying these licenses?
Where did you find out that Google is not paying, while Samsung is paying?

Google maintains VP9 and AV1 are royalty-free, so it's safe to assume they aren't paying.
https://www.webmproject.org/about/faq/
And if they did, they are a public company that has to disclose such things, so we'd know:

About Samsung, I don't know, keep in mind I mentioned "OEMs like Samsung" in my previous post, not Samsung per-se, but I admit it's bad wording in retrospect. But Sisvel did manage to get some OEMs to sign up:
https://www.sisvel.com/news/sisvel-f...sing-platform/
https://www.businesswire.com/news/ho...ic-Corporation
Which, let's be real, is the companies Sisvel is really targeting, not Google.

Originally Posted by rwill

Any source on who the patent pools will go after and who not?

No, I can't predict the future. But the fact those companies are letting Google build its services and products on what they claim is treasured intellectual property without doing anything about it for several years tells you a lot about how BS the claims are.

We've been here before with Microsoft claiming the Linux kernel infringes on Microsoft patents, without ever taking action against Linux, despite Linux eating their lunch in the server space.

Personally, I am an "I'll believe it when I see it" kind of person, so I will admit Sisvel's patent pools have any relevance to the VP9 and AV1 standards when I see a single successful patent lawsuit.

[hajj_3]

Originally Posted by kurkosdr

About Samsung, I don't know, keep in mind I mentioned "OEMs like Samsung" in my previous post, not Samsung per-se, but I admit it's bad wording in retrospect. But Sisvel did manage to get some OEMs to sign up:
https://www.sisvel.com/news/sisvel-f...sing-platform/
https://www.businesswire.com/news/ho...ic-Corporation
Which, let's be real, is the companies Sisvel is really targeting, not Google.

The licensees are also licensors. They licenced it in order to to try to give Sisvel's patent pool legitimacy.

[hajj_3]

Sisvel AV1 patent list was updated on 15th Jan 2025: https://www.sisvel.com/xlin7ipl485u/...ntList_AV1.pdf
Sisvel VP9 patent list was updated on 10th Jan 2025: https://www.sisvel.com/xlin7ipl485u/...ntList_VP9.pdf

Not sure what changes there are since the list from October 2024.

[hajj_3]

Sisvel AV1 patent list was updated on 11th April 2025: https://www.sisvel.com/xlin7ipl485u/...ntList_AV1.pdf

There are 7 additional pages!!!

[oibaf]

Originally Posted by hajj_3

Sisvel AV1 patent list was updated on 11th April 2025: https://www.sisvel.com/xlin7ipl485u/...ntList_AV1.pdf

There are 7 additional pages!!!

Do you know what they mean with "Family members" patents? Are they needed or not? If not, why they are there?

[benwaggoner]

Originally Posted by oibaf

Do you know what they mean with "Family members" patents? Are they needed or not? If not, why they are there?

It's common to get multiple patents that are slight variations on the same application. Together they get called a family.

For example I have 64 patent families: https://patents.google.com/?inventor...jamin+Waggoner)

But 94 patent publications: https://patents.google.com/?inventor...&dups=language

(and woah, that number snuck up on me. Almost 100!)

For example my "Object tracking in zoomed video" patent family has a bunch of different actual patent publications with variations and for different regions:

• https://patents.google.com/patent/US...&dups=language
• https://patents.google.com/patent/AU...&dups=language
• https://patents.google.com/patent/CA...&dups=language
• https://patents.google.com/patent/US...&dups=language
• https://patents.google.com/patent/US...&dups=language
• https://patents.google.com/patent/WO...&dups=language
• https://patents.google.com/patent/EP...&dups=language
• https://patents.google.com/patent/CA...&dups=language
• https://patents.google.com/patent/EP...&dups=language

I'm hardly a patent law expert, so I am sure others understand how that became eight publications better than I do.

It's not one of my most important ones, but I imagine the "Jeffery P. Bezos" as a co-inventor probably made a difference .

(and no, I have never met him or directly collaborated with him).

[oibaf]

Interesting read!

Anyway, including all the "Family members" patents, there are not many changes between the active patents of the "15th Jan" and the "11th April" versions: 5 patents removed and 7 added. The 7 pages difference is likely due to page formatting issues (bigger font size or similar).