Content deleted Content added
m Added non-breaking space to non-template file size, frequency, bitrate, and bandwidth values (via WP:JWB) |
→Licensing: update url of patents page + merge 2 citation to the same page |
||
Line 563:
In countries where [[software patent|patents on software algorithms]] are upheld, vendors and commercial users of products that use H.264/AVC are expected to pay patent licensing royalties for the patented technology that their products use.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Documents/avcweb.pdf |title=Briefing portfolio |website=www.mpegla.com }}</ref> This applies to the Baseline Profile as well.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://blogs.sun.com/openmediacommons/entry/oms_video_a_project_of|title=OMS Video, A Project of Sun's Open Media Commons Initiative|access-date=2008-08-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100511060302/http://blogs.sun.com/openmediacommons/entry/oms_video_a_project_of|archive-date=May 11, 2010|url-status=dead|df=mdy-all}}</ref>
A private organization known as [[MPEG LA]], which is not affiliated in any way with the MPEG standardization organization, administers the licenses for patents applying to this standard, as well as other [[patent pool]]s, such as for MPEG-4 Part 2 Video, HEVC and MPEG-DASH. The patent holders include [[Fujitsu]], [[Panasonic]], [[Sony]], [[Mitsubishi]], [[Apple Inc.|Apple]], [[Columbia University]], [[KAIST]], [[Dolby Laboratories|Dolby]], [[Google]], [[JVC Kenwood]], [[LG Electronics]], [[Microsoft]], [[NTT Docomo]], [[Philips]], [[Samsung]], [[Sharp Corporation|Sharp]], [[Toshiba]] and [[ZTE]],<ref>{{cite web |title=Licensors Included in the AVC/H.264 Patent Portfolio License |url=https://www.mpegla.com/programs/avc-h-264/licensors/ |website=[[MPEG LA]] |access-date=18 June 2019}}</ref> although the majority of patents in the pool are held by [[Panasonic]] ({{formatnum:{{#expr:1137+60}}|}} patents), [[Gōdō gaisha|Godo Kaisha]] IP Bridge ({{formatnum:{{#expr:1111+19}}|}} patents) and [[LG Electronics]] ({{#expr:949+(40+1)}} patents).<ref name="patents">{{cite web |title=AVC/H.264 {{ndash}} Patent List |url=https://www.
On August 26, 2010, MPEG LA announced that royalties won't be charged for H.264 encoded Internet video that is free to end users.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%20LA%20News%20List/Attachments/74/n-10-08-26.pdf|title=MPEG LA's AVC License Will Not Charge Royalties for Internet Video that is Free to End Users through Life of License|publisher=MPEG LA|date=2010-08-26|access-date=2010-08-26|archive-date=November 7, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131107135621/http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%20LA%20News%20List/Attachments/74/n-10-08-26.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref> All other royalties remain in place, such as royalties for products that decode and encode H.264 video as well as to operators of free television and subscription channels.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2368359,00.asp |title=MPEG LA Cuts Royalties from Free Web Video, Forever |publisher=pcmag.com |date=2010-08-26 |access-date=2010-08-26 |first=Mark |last=Hachman}}</ref> The license terms are updated in 5-year blocks.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/FAQ.aspx |title=AVC FAQ |publisher=MPEG LA |date=2002-08-01 |access-date=2010-05-17 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100507102710/http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/FAQ.aspx |archive-date=May 7, 2010 |url-status=dead }}</ref>
Since the first version of the standard was completed in May 2003 ({{age|month=May|year=2003}} years ago) and the most commonly used profile (the High profile) was completed in June 2004{{Citation needed|date=December 2023}} ({{age|month=June|year=2004}} years ago), a number of the relevant patents that apply to the standard expires every year,<ref
In 2005, Qualcomm sued Broadcom in US District Court, alleging that Broadcom infringed on two of its patents by making products that were compliant with the H.264 video compression standard.<ref name="case">See [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/fed/071545p.pdf Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp.], No. 2007-1545, 2008-1162 (Fed. Cir. December 1, 2008). For articles in the popular press, see signonsandiego.com, [http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20070127-9999-1b27verdict.html "Qualcomm loses its patent-rights case"] and [http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20070126-9999-1b26qualcomm.html "Qualcomm's patent case goes to jury"]; and bloomberg.com [https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601204&sid=aLX_DFMCEYWU&refer=technology "Broadcom Wins First Trial in Qualcomm Patent Dispute"]</ref> In 2007, the District Court found that the patents were unenforceable because Qualcomm had failed to disclose them to the JVT prior to the release of the H.264 standard in May 2003.<ref name="case" /> In December 2008, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court's order that the patents be unenforceable but remanded to the District Court with instructions to limit the scope of unenforceability to H.264 compliant products.<ref name="case" />
| |||