JohnWorks@sh.itjust.works to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 days agoAV1’s open, royalty-free promise in question as Dolby sues Snapchat over codecarstechnica.comexternal-linkmessage-square49fedilinkarrow-up1355arrow-down12cross-posted to: [email protected][email protected]
arrow-up1353arrow-down1external-linkAV1’s open, royalty-free promise in question as Dolby sues Snapchat over codecarstechnica.comJohnWorks@sh.itjust.works to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 days agomessage-square49fedilinkcross-posted to: [email protected][email protected]
minus-squareFG_3479@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5·24 hours agoThey are not supposed to be but Sisvel claims they are.
minus-squareflying_sheep@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·15 hours agoBecause they always do, not because they have a legitimate claim.
minus-squareVenia Silente@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·11 hours agoIn the US system at least it matters not if your claim is legitimate, the mere fact that you can file it poses a severe risk. Patent system needs fixing from the foundations up. Or even better, full abolition. In the meantime, what’s the better actually open codec to reencode to?
They are not supposed to be but Sisvel claims they are.
Because they always do, not because they have a legitimate claim.
In the US system at least it matters not if your claim is legitimate, the mere fact that you can file it poses a severe risk.
Patent system needs fixing from the foundations up. Or even better, full abolition.
In the meantime, what’s the better actually open codec to reencode to?