Firm boosts H.264 streaming license fees from $100k up to staggering $4.5M • Hacker News Board

Re: Firm boosts H.264 streaming license fees from $100k up to staggering $4.5M

#31

Post by skrrtww » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 7:55 PM UTC

adrian_b wrote: post #23

watermelon0 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are supposed to be, but Disney doesn't think so: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/03/av1s-open-royalty-fr... Also, let's not forget that the majority of devices still don't have AV1 hardware decoding support. For example, Apple only recently (2023) added support with iPhone 15 Pro and M3 Macs.

The claims made by Dolby that some H.265 patent claims that are formulated very vaguely also apply to AV1 are probably bogus. Like many other such frivolous patent lawsuits, Dolby hopes to either scare the other company into making a deal in order to avoid bigger legal expenses, or to establish a legal precedent if their cunning lawyers can convince a technically incompetent jury that the H.265 patents are applicable…

Is a panel of 'neutral' experts even possible to field in this area? I feel like anyone with sufficiently in depth knowledge of both the AV1 and HEVC specs has almost certainly derived a big paycheck for years from stakeholders on one side or the other of these lawsuits.

I'm no expert, but Google having designed AV1, I can certainly imagine a world where the codec infringes upon HEVC just enough that the lawsuit fees would come out in the wash.

Re: Firm boosts H.264 streaming license fees from $100k up to staggering $4.5M

#32

Post by Figs » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 7:58 PM UTC

KronisLV wrote: post #26

That's an insane amount. That makes me feel even more strongly about throwing proprietary and predatory codecs in the trash and opting to use AV1 et al wherever possible, it's better anyways and surely close to a decade after coming out, we'd expect devices to support it well enough.

> it's better anyways and surely close to a decade after coming out, we'd expect devices to support it well enough.

A lot of people, myself included, are still using quite old hardware. The GPU in my daily driver is ~10 years old at this point. Between crypto, COVID, and this AI craze raising GPU costs by insane amounts, it hasn't made sense to replace it with something newer. I know I'm not alone on that...

Re: Firm boosts H.264 streaming license fees from $100k up to staggering $4.5M

#33

Post by nine_k » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 8:01 PM UTC

KronisLV wrote: post #26

That's an insane amount. That makes me feel even more strongly about throwing proprietary and predatory codecs in the trash and opting to use AV1 et al wherever possible, it's better anyways and surely close to a decade after coming out, we'd expect devices to support it well enough.

Insane in absolute terms, but not per user. Take look at the actual fee schedule [1]. The most costly is the license for cable TV, which costs 50¢ per year per subscriber. The least costly is social media, which goes up to whopping 4.5¢ per MAU per user.

I very much understand how the licensing alliance likely was bothered by the fact that they are leaving money on the table, when TikTok's revenue per user is $50 a year, and a cable subscription is easily $800 per year, with the high-end reaching $2000. The big players aren't going to notice much. For the small players, nothing changed.

[1]: https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/3wzYaofEETCfXdQmREx9BK-120...

Re: Firm boosts H.264 streaming license fees from $100k up to staggering $4.5M

#34

Post by mananaysiempre » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 8:04 PM UTC

watermelon0 wrote: post #21

hollow-moe wrote: post #3

Aren't VP9 and AV1 supposed to be "royalty free formats" ?

They are supposed to be, but Disney doesn't think so: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/03/av1s-open-royalty-fr... Also, let's not forget that the majority of devices still don't have AV1 hardware decoding support. For example, Apple only recently (2023) added support with iPhone 15 Pro and M3 Macs.

> For example, Apple only recently (2023) added support [for AV1].

Apple has been actively obstructing open video formats for a long long time—Apple is the reason there isn’t a baseline format for in the HTML5 spec, for instance. (Or at least there wasn’t when the spec was still a well-defined document with a version number; I see no merit in keeping track of the “living” one.) Incidentally, Apple is a member of MPEG-LA and claims to hold numerous patents covering both AVC and HEVC.

At this point, whatever harms befall Apple’s users due to lack of Apple’s lack of format support are entirely Apple’s fault.

Re: Firm boosts H.264 streaming license fees from $100k up to staggering $4.5M

#35

Post by dmitrygr » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 8:22 PM UTC

KronisLV wrote: post #26

That's an insane amount. That makes me feel even more strongly about throwing proprietary and predatory codecs in the trash and opting to use AV1 et al wherever possible, it's better anyways and surely close to a decade after coming out, we'd expect devices to support it well enough.

AV1 might not be as patent-free as we had hoped: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/03/av1s-open-royalty-fr...

Re: Firm boosts H.264 streaming license fees from $100k up to staggering $4.5M

#36

Post by craftkiller » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 8:24 PM UTC

Figs wrote: post #32

KronisLV wrote: post #26

That's an insane amount. That makes me feel even more strongly about throwing proprietary and predatory codecs in the trash and opting to use AV1 et al wherever possible, it's better anyways and surely close to a decade after coming out, we'd expect devices to support it well enough.

> it's better anyways and surely close to a decade after coming out, we'd expect devices to support it well enough. A lot of people, myself included, are still using quite old hardware. The GPU in my daily driver is ~10 years old at this point. Between crypto, COVID, and this AI craze raising GPU costs by insane amounts, it hasn't made sense to replace it with something newer. I know I'm not alone on that...

For legacy devices, VP8/VP9 is a good option. Intel Added VP8 hardware decoding to Broadwell which was 12 years ago. Nvidia had hardware VP9 decoding 10 years ago on the Geforce 10 series. AMD had hardware VP9 decode support 9 years ago on the Radeon 400 series.

Re: Firm boosts H.264 streaming license fees from $100k up to staggering $4.5M

#37

Post by jorvi » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 8:25 PM UTC

adrian_b wrote: post #23

watermelon0 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are supposed to be, but Disney doesn't think so: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/03/av1s-open-royalty-fr... Also, let's not forget that the majority of devices still don't have AV1 hardware decoding support. For example, Apple only recently (2023) added support with iPhone 15 Pro and M3 Macs.

The claims made by Dolby that some H.265 patent claims that are formulated very vaguely also apply to AV1 are probably bogus. Like many other such frivolous patent lawsuits, Dolby hopes to either scare the other company into making a deal in order to avoid bigger legal expenses, or to establish a legal precedent if their cunning lawyers can convince a technically incompetent jury that the H.265 patents are applicable…

What I don't understand is why the AV1 pool isn't activating their MAD clause.

Part of the idea with AV1 was that with the constituents also holding such a massive warchest of patents (plus big tech being richer than god), they would countersue and demolish anyone that tries to bully AV1 users. Which would act like deterrence.

Where is all that might? Was it all just saber rattling, and are they basically going to let the AVC / HEVC patent holders make a fool out of them?

Re: Firm boosts H.264 streaming license fees from $100k up to staggering $4.5M

#38

Post by Veliladon » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 8:26 PM UTC

KronisLV wrote: post #26

That's an insane amount. That makes me feel even more strongly about throwing proprietary and predatory codecs in the trash and opting to use AV1 et al wherever possible, it's better anyways and surely close to a decade after coming out, we'd expect devices to support it well enough.

The problem is that open codecs can still be encumbered by patents and the holders will sue. VP9 and AV1 have their own patent pool for that very reason. Google may have open sourced its codecs but if they don’t indemnify users people who think they’re safe might be in for a bad time.

Re: Firm boosts H.264 streaming license fees from $100k up to staggering $4.5M

#39

Post by adrian_b » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 8:28 PM UTC

skrrtww wrote: post #31

adrian_b wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The claims made by Dolby that some H.265 patent claims that are formulated very vaguely also apply to AV1 are probably bogus. Like many other such frivolous patent lawsuits, Dolby hopes to either scare the other company into making a deal in order to avoid bigger legal expenses, or to establish a legal precedent if their cunning lawyers can convince a technically incompetent jury that the H.265 patents are applicable…

Is a panel of 'neutral' experts even possible to field in this area? I feel like anyone with sufficiently in depth knowledge of both the AV1 and HEVC specs has almost certainly derived a big paycheck for years from stakeholders on one side or the other of these lawsuits. I'm no expert, but Google having designed AV1, I can certainly imagine a world where the codec infringes upon HEVC just enough that the lawsuit fees…

You are right about the danger of non-neutral experts, but there still is an essential difference between a group of experts and a jury.

The experts may be biased, but when they open the mouth and try to argue their position their bias becomes obvious for the other experts and it can be contradicted with logical arguments.

Unless all the experts work for an interested party, it would be very difficult to impose an incorrect verdict, because it is impossible to argue in its favor without the mistakes in the argument being immediately exposed by an interlocutor.

On the other hand, with a standard jury most people will be unable to see what is wrong in the arguments presented to them and they will not be able to distinguish truth from lies in such technical subjects.

The US elections and the elections in many other countries are an eloquent proof of the capacity of average people for distinguishing truth from lies concerning much simpler facts than the details of video compression patents. Expecting a jury to choose the right verdict in such a trial seems too optimistic.

Re: Firm boosts H.264 streaming license fees from $100k up to staggering $4.5M

#40

Post by adrian_b » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 8:37 PM UTC

jorvi wrote: post #37

adrian_b wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The claims made by Dolby that some H.265 patent claims that are formulated very vaguely also apply to AV1 are probably bogus. Like many other such frivolous patent lawsuits, Dolby hopes to either scare the other company into making a deal in order to avoid bigger legal expenses, or to establish a legal precedent if their cunning lawyers can convince a technically incompetent jury that the H.265 patents are applicable…

What I don't understand is why the AV1 pool isn't activating their MAD clause. Part of the idea with AV1 was that with the constituents also holding such a massive warchest of patents (plus big tech being richer than god), they would countersue and demolish anyone that tries to bully AV1 users. Which would act like deterrence. Where is all that might? Was it all just saber rattling, and are they basically going to le…

For now Dolby has just filed a lawsuit.

If this will reach a trial, it remains to be seen whether Snap will fight alone or it will receive support.