this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2026
349 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

86401 readers
2741 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
349
AV1’s open, royalty-free promise in question as Dolby sues Snapchat over codec (arstechnica.com)
submitted 3 months ago by JohnWorks@sh.itjust.works to c/technology@lemmy.world
39 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 40 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 198 points 3 months ago (2 children)

So just to be clear for all of you:

Dolby is not a creator of AV1, Dolby is not in charge of licensing decisions for AV1. All companies involved in HVEC and AV1 have not performed bait and switch.

What has happened is that Dolby alleges that they already have a patent on parts of what makes AV1 work. This may be an accident, or maybe someone stole Dolby’s tech. This may be something that can be fixed by changing how the software works, without breaking the file format.

It will be interesting to see how this one plays out.

Also, I’ve been saying it for 30 years at this point, and I will keep saying it: FUCK patents, software patents especially, and fuck the stupid system of capitalism for making them necessary

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 70 points 3 months ago (2 children)

AV1 has been out almost ten years and Dolby's first case is with Snapchat? Bruh

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 33 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Which is a damn good point. If you don't protect a patent in a reasonable time frame I believe you lose the right to protect it. If Dolby has had this patent for a long time, and allowed it to become part of a standard, it may be a quick dismissal of the case.

[–] WildPalmTree@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Thinking of trademarks? I'm not sure, but I feel like that is true. To quote a true asshole: "I'm just asking questions".

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

No. Pretty sure it's true of patents too. Might depend on which court you're in.

[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Tyler Texas’s ears just perked up. That court has cost parent troll victims billions.

[–] WildPalmTree@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

"Spider-Man, Spider-Man - does whatever a spider can."

[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 months ago

Trademarks I think are the most commonplace for this to happen, but I believe it applies to all IP. I don’t believe that any laws are written with specific timeframes but if the court feels that a right holder knew about and didn’t take action against an infringer within a “reasonable” time (as to be determined by the count based on the circumstances surrounding the case), then an implicit license is inferred.

If this was not done, it would encourage right holders to wait out infringement in order to achieve larger settlements.

[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 9 points 3 months ago

Oh, I’m not saying this to defend Dolby’s actions, IMHO and IANAL but this feels like a “see if this shit sticks” type of deal.

Maybe this is something specific that Snapchat’s implementation does and isn’t directly related to AV1 and the headline is clickbait? Hard for me to know.

I just wanted to point out that AV1’s consortium doesn’t seem to be rugpulling as some other commenters on here seem to feel.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 42 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Dolby: we have a patent that ug let's you do shit to a file so it comes out in another format. We own all formats now and forever!

[–] Virtvirt588@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Thats what ambiguity enables, a logical fallacy that allows evil corpos to do as they please. And thats basically capitalism, or even feudalism at this point.

[–] HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 months ago

Or "strategic ambiguity" as practiced by a certain country.

[–] riskable@programming.dev 139 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Patents on software shouldn't exist!

[–] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 68 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Patents ~~on software~~ shouldn't exist!

This is my take.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 39 points 3 months ago

5 year patents should exist IMHO. I think that's a reasonable chance to monetise an invention. Short enough to remove the use of patents as munitions between companies.

After that it's open season and you've allowed society to use it in any way in return for that 5 year protection.

[–] CosmoNova@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I agree. It‘s the only way to actually overcome capitalism. Same rules for all is important of course.

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 16 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No patents ensures that if an individual does invent something, only corporations can profit off it because they can just put the inventor out of business by undercutting, rather than having to pay the inventor.

Unfortunately, they do protect corporations more than individual inventors purely because corporations have more R&D budget.

[–] ZephyrXero@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago

Seems like the solution is to only allow individuals to apply for patents, and organizations and their proxies may not

[–] pipe01@programming.dev 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

~~Patents on~~ software shouldn't exist

Fuck it

[–] Haaveilija@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago

Pa~~te~~nts ~~on software~~ shouldn't exist

[–] ftbd@feddit.org 3 points 3 months ago

Come to Europe, then :)

[–] db2@lemmy.world 49 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Rather, the AV1 specification was developed after many foundational video coding patents had already been filed, and AV1 incorporates technologies that are also present in HEVC.

Like file()

[–] Shirasho@lemmings.world 81 points 3 months ago (2 children)

This wording is wild. They did not say that AV1 uses patented material - they said that AV1 includes some technologies that are in HEVC. Dolby doesn't have a case, and they know it. They are trying to use wording that twists the truth to make it sound like they are in the right.

[–] Cort@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I read it as Dolby saying av1 uses the same patented technology from hevc, and Dolby holds those patents.

[–] five82@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Even though the AV1 spec was finalized 8 years ago, the HEVC patent mess was well known back then. I know that AOM put a lot of effort into working around patent problems so it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Google, Amazon, Netflix, Meta, Apple and the rest of AOM all have a lot on the line if the patent trolls win.

Open video and audio codecs are a direct threat to Dolby's core business so this move isn't surprising unfortunately.

[–] veniasilente@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 3 months ago (1 children)

We all knew this was going to happen one day or another.

Where's Theora these days, byw? Wasn't it the encoding blessed by the license druids?

[–] FG_3479@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Theora is an old and very inefficient codec. VP8, VP9, and now AV1 have succeeded it.

[–] veniasilente@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

But all of those are VPs are patent encumbered, right?

[–] FG_3479@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

They are not supposed to be but Sisvel claims they are.

[–] HertzDentalBar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Fuck patents on software. May every person who applys for one be jabbed by the LA aids jabber.

[–] Lawnman23@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Oddly specific reference is oddly specific…

[–] gnuplusmatt@reddthat.com 8 points 3 months ago

but I've been standardising my library on AV1

[–] JohnWorks@sh.itjust.works 7 points 3 months ago

Maybe I should just reencode all my stuff in VVC 😮‍💨

[–] kieron115@startrek.website 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Why exactly are they targeting a non-governing member of the alliance?

[–] Rekall_Incorporated@piefed.social 20 points 3 months ago

Because Snap has less resources for a long legal fight than Google, Amazon and so on...

[–] Mwa@thelemmy.club 4 points 3 months ago

So not royalty-free?

[–] berty@feddit.org 1 points 3 months ago

The title is a bit misleading. What does that mean for the future of AV1?

[–] andybytes@programming.dev -2 points 3 months ago

fascist fighting fascist... this is how it was expected to be in the end times