In addition to Dolby, InterDigital is also suing AV1 [PDF] And some are accusing Amazon of infringing its patents by supporting the codec on Fire streaming devices.
Additionally, European Union (EU) antitrust regulators investigated Aiomedia’s licensing policy in 2022, but closed the investigation in 2023 “for priority reasons,” an EU spokesperson told Reuters at the time, noting that “the closure is not a finding of compliance or non-compliance of the conduct with EU competition rules.”
The outcome of Dolby and InterDigital’s lawsuits could have a lasting impact on the adoption of AV1, which lags behind HEVC by eight years after its release.
“Just because Big Tech says a codec should be royalty-free does not mean it is. … Given that all codecs use similar technologies to some degree, the risk of patent infringement related to parties not offering royalty-free licenses is considerable,” intellectual property activist and commentator Florian Mueller told Ars Technica.
Mueller said many streaming services have operated without video codec licenses for years because patent holders have prioritized collecting royalties on hardware and software products. This has changed in recent years amid the growth of streaming.
“Companies like Amazon and Disney will want to convince the courts that because no one, or at least no major players, knocked on their doors for many years, they no longer have to pay,” said Muller, who runs the online publication IP Fray.
Although the debate over whether a codec can truly be royalty-free goes back years, the debate around AV1 is attracting more attention than previous discussions. Dolby’s lawsuit could have a profound impact on the AV1 standard, especially if the judge decides that Dolby is not obligated to license the patented technologies supported by AV1.
As Mueller pointed out, HEVC was created with most of the essential patent holders signing the FRAND licensing pledge, which differs from the creation of AV1:
With AV1, it may turn out that there are a large number of patent holders who have the essential patents but no FRAND licensing obligations. In that case, they can theoretically demand anything, even extortionate amounts, to the extent that someone stops enforcing AV1. And the really bad thing here, which I’m sure is not Dolby’s intention, but it may be someone else’s, is that someone might deliberately demand prohibitive royalties for AV1 in order to discourage use of the standard.
Dolby and Snap did not respond to requests for comment. An Aomedia spokesperson confirmed receipt of our queries, but did not respond before publication.
<a href