[adrian_b]

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 to AV1.

This is the kind of trial that should have never been decided by a normal jury, but only by a panel of neutral experts in this field.

[skrrtww]

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.

[adrian_b]

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.

[sysguest]

hmm if you know how patents work, "Google having designed AV1" isn't same as "Google 100% sure AV1 doesn't have patent infringes"

even if you're google, you can't be 100% sure if there's some obscure patent lurking around the corner

[jorvi]

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?

[adrian_b]

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.