AV1’s open, royalty-free promise in question as Dolby sues Snapchat over codec
Besides Dolby, InterDigital is also pursuing AV1 [PDF] and accuses some Amazon Fire streaming devices of violating its patents by supporting the codec.
Additionally, European Union (EU) antitrust regulators investigated AOMedia’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 does not constitute a finding of compliance or non-compliance of the conduct in question with EU competition rules.”
The results of the lawsuits filed by Dolby and InterDigital could have lasting implications for the adoption of AV1, which lags behind that of HEVC eight years after its release.
“Just because Big Tech says a codec should be royalty-free doesn’t mean it is. … Given that all codecs use somewhat similar techniques, the risk of infringing patents owned by parties who have not offered royalty-free licenses is substantial,” intellectual property activist and commentator Florian Mueller told Ars Technica.
Mueller said many streaming services have operated without a video codec license for years, with patent holders prioritizing collecting royalties on hardware and software products. This has changed in recent years with the growth of streaming.
“Companies like Amazon and Disney would like to persuade the courts that after many years of no one, or at least no major player knocking on their door, they don’t have to pay now,” said Mueller, who runs the online publication IP Fray.
Although the debate over whether a codec can be truly royalty-free goes back several years, the debate around AV1 is getting more attention than previous discussions. Dolby’s lawsuit in particular could have resounding implications for the AV1 standard if a judge rules that Dolby is not obligated to license patented technologies intended to be exploited by AV1.
As Mueller pointed out, HEVC was created with most essential patent holders signing a FRAND licensing commitment, which differs from the creation of AV1:
With AV1, it could turn out that there are many more patent holders with essential patents but without FRAND licensing requirements. In this case, they could theoretically charge anything, even exorbitant sums, to the point where someone would then stop implementing AV1. And the really bad thing here, which I’m sure is not Dolby’s goal but might be someone else’s, is that someone could deliberately charge 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 acknowledged receipt of our questions but did not provide answers prior to publication.
