Comment by AndrewDucker
4 hours ago
How does that prove anything?
They're claiming that there are patents, but that doesn't mean there are.
4 hours ago
How does that prove anything?
They're claiming that there are patents, but that doesn't mean there are.
Dolby is only the most recent case, Sisvel consorsium actually bills licences per device:
Consumer Display Device: EUR 0.32
Consumer Non-Display Device: EUR 0.11
(source here: https://www.sisvel.com/licensing-programmes/audio-and-video-...)
Sisvel allows you to pay them if you believe their claims, they haven't actually taken anyone not paying to court yet to prove that. The only court cases for VP9/AV1 from Sisvel so far have been their patents being found invalid/irrelevant.
Dolby is somewhat more interesting in that rather than scare tactics, media hype, and attempting to form a pool about it they are actually taking a patent assertion claim to court.
That crowd are just deeply concerned one of their lucrative revenue streams is disappearing.
So they seem to be attempting to pull a fast one and use unproven claims to try and convert their competitor into a replacement revenue source.
It'll probably be a case of whoever has the best lawyers + contacts + persistence wins.
But it'll be interesting if discovery shows evidence they know they don't have a case and are trying it anyway. "Piercing the corporate veil" can theoretically be a consequence of that AFAIK.
How does how they bill for their product, matter in terms of if their lawsuit holds merit?
Can you point to any other patent lawsuit over AV1? AFAIK the Dolby case is the first.
That doesn’t prove their claims are valid.
I can claim the same and offer licenses per device.