Talk:AV1

Lol what? Mpeg4 Visual patents haven't expired, neither have Mpeg 2 patents worldwide

MPEG LA lists active patents for MPEG 4 Visual in the United States, Brazil and Malaysia, and the United States does enforce software patents. https://www.mpegla.com/wp-content/uploads/m4v-att1.pdf

Also, MPEG LA lists active patents for MPEG 2 Part 2 in Malaysia https://www.mpegla.com/wp-content/uploads/m2-att1.pdf Don't know if Malaysia enforces software patents, but hardware needs to pay royalties anyway (even open-source hardware).

     Don't worry about US patents regarding MPEG 4 Visual, the only remaining one is about watermarking. In other words, you can freely encode and decode say normal Xvid streams without owing a dime to anyone; besides that's why Fedora has now the xvidcore package. For further information please see the https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Have_the_patents_for_MPEG-4_Visual_expired_yet%3F and its associated talk page. As for Brazil and Malaysia, it's true that there are remaining patents there and that's too bad for them. But except these two countries, both MPEG 2 and 4 Visual are patent free now. Tizizi (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Fuller background on unknown-patent situation?

The table in the "Purpose" section feels a little backwards for emphasizing that the patent situation isn't _fully_ knowable (because of submarine patents) before saying some of the things they've done to minimize the exposure in the design. There are some techniques in AV1 that AOM has affirmative reasons to think there can't be any valid patents on, even from unknown patentholders. In roughly decreasing order of safety:

• Tech that members own a patent on
• Tech whose patents have expired
• Parameter changes that arguably aren't new ideas at all (more prediction directions or calculation precision)
• Tech widely deployed without a successful infringement suit (like in VP9)

Then there's tech that none of the above apply to, but was developed actively avoiding the many known patents surfaced through the HEVC process or AOM's research. There's also some slight increase in confidence that comes over time as AV1 is deployed in browsers, hardware, etc. without publicly known successful infringement suits (Sisvel seems to have barked but not actually bitten), though of course potential patentholders could be biding their time.

Given all that, it seems better to say the codec's safety against patents from unknown holders _can't be fully proven_, where existing text suggests it's anyone's guess. 135.180.40.74 (talk) 05:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

WebM supported or not?

This page states "as a matter of formality, AV1 has not been sanctioned into the subset of Matroska known as WebM as of late 2019". However, the WebM page says "It also supports the new AV1 codec." I'm clear on the details, so I didn't change this myself. This reddit has more info. - kentyman (talk) 22:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)