Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion.

Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > Video Encoding > MPEG-4 AVC / H.264

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 1st November 2023, 19:49   #61  |  Link
oibaf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by kurkosdr View Post
It's been 3 months since August 1, 2023, so MPEG LA pushed a new list:
https://www.via-la.com/wp-content/up...tachment-1.pdf

----


I may try and make a csv list or spreadsheet of the MPEG LA document sometime so I can feed it to Google Patents, but if you already have one, can you post it? Basically trying to come up with a "isn't royalty-free before" date for every country (only taking into account patents with a priority date from before March 1, 2005)
Now 17 pages with active patents, 40 with expired patents.

Updated active patents on November 2023 list:
  • US: 480
  • CN: 119
  • JP: 111
  • KR: 72
  • GB: 58
  • BR: 57
  • DE: 55
  • FR: 55
  • IT: 52
  • ES: 52
  • NL: 47
  • PL: 47
  • PT: 44
  • SE: 44
  • TR: 44
  • BE: 43
  • CH: 43
  • CZ: 42
  • HU: 41
  • DK: 40
  • EE: 40
  • HK: 40
  • LI: 40
  • MX: 39
  • AT: 38
  • SK: 35
  • FI: 34
  • AU: 32
  • IE: 31
  • LU: 29
  • RO: 29
  • NO: 25
  • RU: 21
  • VN: 21
  • IN: 17
  • CA: 16
  • SI: 15
  • MC: 12

A total of 72 patents will expire in the next 3 months.

I don't have a better list, to get these numbers I just did this:
  • opened the PDF with pdfarranger, cut all the pages leaving only the pages with active patents and saved as a new PDF
  • opened the resulting PDF with Firefox, its search function gives the number of occurrences

Last edited by oibaf; 1st November 2023 at 20:20.
oibaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st November 2023, 19:53   #62  |  Link
kurkosdr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 332
Quote:
Originally Posted by oibaf View Post
Now 18 pages with active patents, 39 with expired patents.

Updated active patents on November 2023 list:
  • US: 480
  • CN: 119
  • JP: 111
  • KR: 72
  • GB: 58
  • BR: 57
  • DE: 55
  • FR: 55
  • IT: 52
  • ES: 52
  • NL: 47
  • CA: 16

A total of 72 patents will expire in the next 3 months.

I don't have a better list, to get these numbers I just did this:
  • opened the PDF with pdfarranger, cut all the pages leaving only the pages with active patents and saved as a new PDF
  • opened the resulting PDF with Firefox, its search function gives the number of occurrences
Huh? It's actually 17 pages, with page #17 being only partially filled.
kurkosdr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st November 2023, 20:23   #63  |  Link
oibaf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by kurkosdr View Post
Huh? It's actually 17 pages, with page #17 being only partially filled.
Indeed, fixed, thanks. Also added other countries.
oibaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st November 2023, 21:00   #64  |  Link
oibaf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by kurkosdr View Post
I may try and make a csv list or spreadsheet of the MPEG LA document sometime so I can feed it to Google Patents, but if you already have one, can you post it? Basically trying to come up with a "isn't royalty-free before" date for every country (only taking into account patents with a priority date from before March 1, 2005)
Some other useful resources here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Have...expired_yet%3F
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/p...erm-calculator
oibaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd November 2023, 16:37   #65  |  Link
kurkosdr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 332
Quote:
Originally Posted by oibaf View Post
The person who wrote this doesn't know what they are talking about, confusing date-of-priority with date-of-filing, and when I tried correcting them on the discussion page, they went off on an unrelated rant about random nonsense.

Just to be clear: When looking for prior art, you should search for prior art from before the date-of-priority, not the date-of-filing.

I would say to take that person's advice with vast amounts of salt, but nope, their advice is complete BS, so don't take it at all. Wait a couple of weeks until the last US patent has expired.

Also, all this is irrelevant to H.264/AVC. Back to H.264/AVC.

Last edited by kurkosdr; 2nd November 2023 at 16:47.
kurkosdr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd November 2023, 18:18   #66  |  Link
oibaf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by kurkosdr View Post
The person who wrote this doesn't know what they are talking about, confusing date-of-priority with date-of-filing, and when I tried correcting them on the discussion page, they went off on an unrelated rant about random nonsense.

Just to be clear: When looking for prior art, you should search for prior art from before the date-of-priority, not the date-of-filing.

I would say to take that person's advice with vast amounts of salt, but nope, their advice is complete BS, so don't take it at all. Wait a couple of weeks until the last US patent has expired.

Also, all this is irrelevant to H.264/AVC. Back to H.264/AVC.

US 7,395,211 is only for watermarking anyway, so it is not usually used, for example with xvid, correct? The patent says:
Quote:
TECHNICAL FIELD The present invention relates to steganography in the context of audio or video signals. More particularly, the invention relates to modifying the encoder and / or decoder operation of an audio or video perceptual coding system according to supplemental information so that supplemental information can be detectable at the output of the decoder . Such supplemental information is often referred to as a "watermark". Watermarking is an aspect of steganography.
EDIT: starting in january 2023 Fedora (owned by Red Hat / IBM) added xvid to the distro, so I suppose they know it could be freely distributed?

Last edited by oibaf; 2nd November 2023 at 18:49.
oibaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd November 2023, 22:03   #67  |  Link
kurkosdr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 332
Quote:
Originally Posted by oibaf View Post
US 7,395,211 is only for watermarking anyway, so it is not usually used, for example with xvid, correct? The patent says:

EDIT: starting in january 2023 Fedora (owned by Red Hat / IBM) added xvid to the distro, so I suppose they know it could be freely distributed?
MPEG LA has an "essentiality overview" for their patents, and they list this patent as being essential to section "Grayscale shape decoding" of the specification:
https://www.mpegla.com/wp-content/up...4VCrossRef.pdf

Just because the title of the patent says something about watermarking, it doesn't mean the ideas it describes aren't essential to some part of the MPEG4 ASP specification. What matters is the claims in the patent (and how they apply to the MPEG4 ASP spec).

If the Fedora people think they don't implement that part of the spec, fine, but the spec is still patented in the US.

BTW I have found a recent version of the spec if you want to look at the relevant section:
http://wikil.lwwhome.cn:28080/wp-con...496-2_2004.pdf

Last edited by kurkosdr; 2nd November 2023 at 22:05.
kurkosdr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd November 2023, 10:48   #68  |  Link
oibaf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 68
The page at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Have...expired_yet%3F says: "The Dolby patent (7,395,211) that was added to the pool in April 2021...". If that's true that let me think MPEG LA searched for a patent still pending, but that had a priority before publishing the MPEG4 Part 2 standard (so that it cannot be invalidated by the prior art of the standard, or not deemed essential for it) and added it to the pool in 2021 just for having another year of fees in the US.

While this doesn't matter a lot now (the patent is expiring in some days, and also this is H.264 thread), it let me suppose they may have done the same for H.264 patent pool. US9356620B2 is indeed another suspect for H.264 (added to the pool recently, expiration date farer than other in pool even if it was filed before the standard).

The difficulty is to find if they really apply to the standards on not. About 7,395,211 it really looks like it is a way to add watermark that can be inserted into the encoder and recovered by the decoder, something not really usually needed by a standard decoder, but that you can take into account for some needs.
oibaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd November 2023, 14:53   #69  |  Link
kurkosdr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 332
Quote:
Originally Posted by oibaf View Post
The page at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Have...expired_yet%3F says: "The Dolby patent (7,395,211) that was added to the pool in April 2021...". If that's true that let me think MPEG LA searched for a patent still pending, but that had a priority before publishing the MPEG4 Part 2 standard (so that it cannot be invalidated by the prior art of the standard, or not deemed essential for it) and added it to the pool in 2021 just for having another year of fees in the US.

While this doesn't matter a lot now (the patent is expiring in some days, and also this is H.264 thread), it let me suppose they may have done the same for H.264 patent pool. US9356620B2 is indeed another suspect for H.264 (added to the pool recently, expiration date farer than other in pool even if it was filed before the standard).
Thing is, they did find a part of the MPEG4 ASP specification to stick their patent on, and the date-of-priority checks out, which means someone competent needs to do an investigation to find out it is not essential before it can be declared non-essential. There is an organization called "unified patents" that does that, but they only deal with newer standards. If no such investigation is done, there is a chance that the patent is indeed essential and then you are in for a world of hurt if you haven't paid the royalties.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oibaf View Post
The difficulty is to find if they really apply to the standards on not. About 7,395,211 it really looks like it is a way to add watermark that can be inserted into the encoder and recovered by the decoder, something not really usually needed by a standard decoder, but that you can take into account for some needs.
Again, the title on the patent is irrelevant. What matters is the claims. If for example MPEG4 ASP uses a method for overlaying something on top of something else that's similar to the claims described in the watermarking patent, then the patent is essential for MPEG4 ASP.

My point is: Stop assuming a patent in the pool is not essential because of the title of the patent or the date it was added to the pool or some other irrelevant factor. What you need is to have someone competent do an investigation regarding its essentiality.

Last edited by kurkosdr; 3rd November 2023 at 14:59.
kurkosdr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd November 2023, 15:38   #70  |  Link
oibaf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by kurkosdr View Post
My point is: Stop assuming a patent in the pool is not essential because of the title of the patent or the date it was added to the pool or some other irrelevant factor. What you need is to have someone competent do an investigation regarding its essentiality.
100% agree for the investigation.
However, it is something that can be only done by someone with enough knowledge of the codecs and the patents law (https://www.unifiedpatents.com/ is interesting, thanks for the suggestion).
In the meantime we can just argue and document about what we find suspect.
oibaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th November 2023, 11:10   #71  |  Link
hajj_3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,135
nokia has filed lots of lawsuits against Amazon and HP in various countries about video codec patents and streaming patents: https://www.nokia.com/blog/nokia-see...ia-inventions/

nokia vs amazon u.s lawsuit document: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...amazoncom-inc/
nokia vs hp u.s lawsuit document: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...s-oy-v-hp-inc/

patents nokia is suing hp over and their expiry dates as nokia listed in the court filing:

US7,532,808 - 2025-12-11 -h264
US8,204,134 - 2028-01-21 -h264
US7,724,818 - 2026-05-03 -h264+h265
US10,536,714 - 2032-11-01 -h265
US11,805,267 - 2032-01-06 -h265
US8,077,991 - 2030-10-12 -h265
US8,050,321 - 2027-05-19 -h264+h265
US6,950,469 - expired on 2023-08-06 -h264
US7,280,599 - expired on 2022-05-14 -h264
US8,036,273 - expired on 2021-09-17 -h264

patents nokia is suing amazon over, nokia did not list the expiration dates in this lawsuit therefore i am getting them off google patents:

US7,532,808 - 2025-12-11? -h264
US8,050,321 - 2027-05-19? -h264+h265?
US7,724,818 - 2026-05-03? -h264+h265?
US6,950,469 - expired 2023-08-06?
US7,280,599 - expired 2022-05-14?
US8,036,273 - expired 2021-09-17?
US6,856,701 - expired 2021-11-27?
US9,800,891 - expired 2021-01-19?
US6,968,005 - expired 2023-01-19?
US8,144,764 - 2024-10-15? -h264
US8,175,148 - 2026-12-03? -h264+h265?
US8,077,991 - 2030-10-12? -h265
US9,571,833 - 2034-10-13? -h265
US11,805,267 - 2032-01-06? -h265
US9,390,137 - 2033-08-01?

nokia is not a part of the via-la licensing for H264 (formerly known as mpeg-la) therefore none of these patents are listed in the via-la licensing list of H264 patents. I haven't checked for other codecs.

Last edited by hajj_3; 12th November 2023 at 12:00.
hajj_3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th November 2023, 12:58   #72  |  Link
hajj_3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,135
p.s here is the october 2023 h265 patent landscape, still many companies not in a patent pool:

hajj_3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2023, 21:53   #73  |  Link
kurkosdr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 332
Quote:
Originally Posted by hajj_3 View Post
p.s here is the october 2023 h265 patent landscape, still many companies not in a patent pool:

(image)
For the second time, HEVC/H.265 is irrelevant to this thread.
kurkosdr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2023, 23:10   #74  |  Link
kurkosdr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 332
Quote:
Originally Posted by hajj_3 View Post
nokia has filed lots of lawsuits against Amazon and HP in various countries about video codec patents and streaming patents: https://www.nokia.com/blog/nokia-see...ia-inventions/

nokia vs amazon u.s lawsuit document: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...amazoncom-inc/
nokia vs hp u.s lawsuit document: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...s-oy-v-hp-inc/

patents nokia is suing hp over and their expiry dates as nokia listed in the court filing:

US7,532,808 - 2025-12-11 -h264
US8,204,134 - 2028-01-21 -h264
US7,724,818 - 2026-05-03 -h264+h265
US10,536,714 - 2032-11-01 -h265
US11,805,267 - 2032-01-06 -h265
US8,077,991 - 2030-10-12 -h265
US8,050,321 - 2027-05-19 -h264+h265
US6,950,469 - expired on 2023-08-06 -h264
US7,280,599 - expired on 2022-05-14 -h264
US8,036,273 - expired on 2021-09-17 -h264

patents nokia is suing amazon over, nokia did not list the expiration dates in this lawsuit therefore i am getting them off google patents:

US7,532,808 - 2025-12-11? -h264
US8,050,321 - 2027-05-19? -h264+h265?
US7,724,818 - 2026-05-03? -h264+h265?
US6,950,469 - expired 2023-08-06?
US7,280,599 - expired 2022-05-14?
US8,036,273 - expired 2021-09-17?
US6,856,701 - expired 2021-11-27?
US9,800,891 - expired 2021-01-19?
US6,968,005 - expired 2023-01-19?
US8,144,764 - 2024-10-15? -h264
US8,175,148 - 2026-12-03? -h264+h265?
US8,077,991 - 2030-10-12? -h265
US9,571,833 - 2034-10-13? -h265
US11,805,267 - 2032-01-06? -h265
US9,390,137 - 2033-08-01?

nokia is not a part of the via-la licensing for H264 (formerly known as mpeg-la) therefore none of these patents are listed in the via-la licensing list of H264 patents. I haven't checked for other codecs.
From Nokia's announcement, it looks like their patents cover more than video compression: "video compression, content delivery, content recommendation and aspects related to hardware."

Things like content delivery, content recommendation and "aspects related to hardware" (whatever that means) are not essential for implementing an H.264 encoder or decoder. For example, MPEG LA used to have a separate patent tool for MPEG-DASH (a content-delivery/streaming standard) because MPEG-DASH is not essential for H.264 so those patents couldn't go into the H.264 patent pool.

Let's start with how many of those patents tagged as H.264 (H.265 is irrelevant to this thread) have a date-of-priority from before 1st March 2005, because for patents with a date-of-priority after 1st March 2005 the spec and reference encoder and decoder from ISO and ITU will count as prior art. Not to say that those that patents that have a date-of-priority from before 1st March 2005 are necessarily essential (see previous paragraph).

Does anyone know of a website that shows the date-of-priority? Google Patents used to before they removed the feature.

Last edited by kurkosdr; 14th November 2023 at 23:53.
kurkosdr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th November 2023, 11:35   #75  |  Link
oibaf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by kurkosdr View Post
Does anyone know of a website that shows the date-of-priority? Google Patents used to before they removed the feature.
Maybe: on Google Patents look under Worldwide applications and click on the older date patents, then look at their older date inside them.

Example: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7835443/ has filing date of 2008-09-26, but under Worldwide applications there is 2003 year with a KR patent with a filing date of 2003-03-03.
So 2003-03-03 can be the priority date?
oibaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th November 2023, 11:55   #76  |  Link
oibaf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by kurkosdr View Post
Let's start with how many of those patents tagged as H.264 (H.265 is irrelevant to this thread) have a date-of-priority from before 1st March 2005, because for patents with a date-of-priority after 1st March 2005 the spec and reference encoder and decoder from ISO and ITU will count as prior art. Not to say that those that patents that have a date-of-priority from before 1st March 2005 are necessarily essential (see previous paragraph).

Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Video_Coding says:

Quote:
Version 1 (Edition 1): (May 30, 2003) First approved version of H.264/AVC containing Baseline, Main, and Extended profiles.[11]
Version 2 (Edition 1.1): (May 7, 2004) Corrigendum containing various minor corrections.[12]
Version 3 (Edition 2): (March 1, 2005) Major addition containing the first amendment, establishing the Fidelity Range Extensions (FRExt). This version added the High, High 10, High 4:2:2, and High 4:4:4 profiles.[13] After a few years, the High profile became the most commonly used profile of the standard.
But then it also says:
Quote:
First published 17 August 2004
Quote:
Since the first version of the standard was completed in May 2003 (20 years ago) and the most commonly used profile (the High profile) was completed in June 2004 (19 years ago)...
Do you know what all these dates refer?
Maybe High profile was already defined in 2004, but the official standard paper was published on March 1, 2005?
Or there is something wrong there?
It would be nice if someone add some references in Wikipedia page about these dates.
oibaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd February 2024, 10:58   #77  |  Link
oibaf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 68
There is a new February 2024 update.

In the previous November 2023 update there were 17 pages of patents, in the newer one there are still 17 pages with a higher number of patents.

In details, here is the total number of patents:
  • 2023-11 list: 2263
  • 2024-02 list: 2335

It looks like since the latest update 72 patents expired, and 144 new patents were added.

The good news is that in the next 3 months 556 patents should expire (which is about 24% of remaining active patents).

I am attaching the ordered lists, if you are interested.
Attachments Pending Approval
File Type: txt 2023-11-active.txt
File Type: txt 2024-02-active.txt

Last edited by oibaf; 2nd February 2024 at 14:11.
oibaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd February 2024, 14:33   #78  |  Link
FranceBB
Broadcast Encoder
 
FranceBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea, UK
Posts: 2,957
Quote:
Originally Posted by oibaf View Post
The good news is that in the next 3 months 556 patents should expire (which is about 24% of remaining active patents)
Very nice.
My only fear is that MPEG-LA will try to kill H.264 once a large enough number of patents expires (which would really be a shame).
I hope I'm wrong, but this is what Dolby did when the AC3 patents expired as they pushed for E-AC3 and now AC4...
FranceBB is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd February 2024, 01:22   #79  |  Link
benwaggoner
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by FranceBB View Post
Very nice.
My only fear is that MPEG-LA will try to kill H.264 once a large enough number of patents expires (which would really be a shame).
I hope I'm wrong, but this is what Dolby did when the AC3 patents expired as they pushed for E-AC3 and now AC4...
MPEG-LA doesn't provide any tools, standards, etcetera. Once all relevant patents have expired, they'll presumably shut down teh licensing program because there would be nothing to license. But the H.264 ecosystem would keep on trucking, just without patents or licensing to worry about.
__________________
Ben Waggoner
Principal Video Specialist, Amazon Prime Video

My Compression Book
benwaggoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd February 2024, 12:52   #80  |  Link
FranceBB
Broadcast Encoder
 
FranceBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea, UK
Posts: 2,957
Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner View Post
Once all relevant patents have expired, they'll presumably shut down the licensing program because there would be nothing to license.
Gotcha, so everything will keep going.
Looks like H.264 is gonna stay with us for a very long time then.
FranceBB is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:53.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.