Comment by radicality
2 years ago
What’s the tldr of the licensing problems?
I’ve started reading this article which list the various H.26x proposals - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Coding_Experts_Group
Seems like the group that comes with these is eventually part of the UN ? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Telecommunicat...
Is it because they come with the codecs “jointly” with the MPEG organization, which is for profit? If the group is part of a standards organization that’s part of the UN, I feel like they should come up with non-patent-encumbered “recommendations”.
> What’s the tldr of the licensing problems?
There are multiple patent pools for H.265 wanting to be paid licensing fees (MPEG LA, HEVC Advance, Velos Media). HEVC Advance and Velos Media even want content distribution licensing fees.
And there are patent holders not in any pool who also want to be paid (Technicolor, Motorola, Nokia, etc.).
It's a mess.
>HEVC Advance and Velos Media even want content distribution licensing fees.
That is not correct. Unless you meant they once "suggested" to ask for content distribution licensing.
It's correct. It's category 4: https://accessadvance.com/topic-what-do-we-license/
14 replies →