This article comes from a senior media person Jan Ozer, LiveVideoStack the original text of the summary. The article points out, H.264 related costs from FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) requirements limit, and may have an impact on all users of H.264 encoding and decoding functions, especially Android device.
Intellectual property lawyer David Long recently reported on his blog in the basic patent: a jury trial took place in federal district court in Texas found that Chinese smartphone maker - Huawei violated the non-practicing entity (NPE) PanOptis have about H.264-related patents. Jury also found, H.264 without FRAND (rational, reasonable and non-discriminatory) restriction requirements, which requirements are usually required for standard patents.
The jury for the single H.264-related patents, awarded PanOptis $ 7.7 million. According to Long's statement, the lawsuit might be the use of H.264 encoding and decoding functions affect all users, including those who distribute H.264 encoded content, especially those Android terminal manufacturers.
Litigation involving Huawei's Android smart phone. Litigation, PanOptis owned patents referred to as' 238 Patent. The following is a series of questions and answers, as well as some of my analysis.
'238 Patent claims if non FRAND, because it is not essential to the standard, but it is being used by Huawei?
Long: public records is not clear. I guess, '238 Patent claims is a way for the realization of the H.264 standard, not only technical way. Therefore, a part of the standard involves some element of the claim, but also part of the claims relate to implementation of the Android operating system. Therefore, '238 Patent may not be essential to the H.264 standard, even if the proposed FRAND commitment, it does not produce effects FRAND commitment.
If it's extremely important, it is still not clear whether the current or previous owner had promised to grant the patent '238 Patent license under FRAND terms. Conclusion: '238 Patent to either the H.264 standard is not important, or not FRAND licensing commitment.
This is to some extent with the use of the Android operating system on the right?
Long: '238 Patent is indeed relevant, because the infringement is based on the H.264 standard and compatibility with the Android operating system. According to the information I read, it is not clear to what extent this has depends on the Android operating system, it is unclear whether there is infringement of Huawei products or other non-H.264 Android respect.
How does this affect Android equipment manufacturers?
Long: the circumstances of any company interested in using the H.264 standard Android operating system this might happen, and in this case did things related to the '238 Patent may occur.
This is common H.264 encoding / decoding technology or a specific chip set about it?
Long: not clear. The case seems to have found, at least '238 Patent part of the claim related to the H.264 standard, so no matter what the specific H.264 chipset, are within the scope of the patent claims part of. However, other parts of the patent claims the specific embodiment has clearly involved a specific product embodiment of the H.264 standard. For example, the specific way the Android operating system and Huawei's products to achieve the H.264 standard - that is, which is probably why is thought to be essential patents "implementation" rather than a standard patent. Therefore, based on the judgment of this case, people want to know '238 Patent claims involve whether a particular product or H.264 chipset will need to see' the rest of 238Patent claims - as part of the H.264 standard does not address the claim - whether Android operating system and the embodiment is found infringement Huawei device.
Will this affect any company using H.264 encoding / decoding technology?
Long: It depends how the similarity with the H.264 standard Android operating system, or face claims for '238 Patent is.
Whether this will have any company H.264 encoded content publishing an impact?
Long: It depends patent claims, which may cover the encoding / decoding of behavior, but may not include encoded content itself, of course, it is also very common. However, even in this case, it may also consider sending the encoded content will induce others to decode the content, which might be responsible for inducing infringement. With all the other answer this question like, depending on the circumstances, if the proposal was not based on your own situation and seek a qualified lawyer, do not rush to make a decision.
Huawei arbitration is in progress or has to stop using the infringing technology?
Long: Technically, the ruling is a run-time royalties on products sold. Huawei does not change as long as its products to stop the implementation of the claimed invention, PanOptis might continue to allow the court ruled ongoing royalties.
Background
July 2017, Apple paid more than $ 2 billion to Nokia, the reason is a certain degree of H.264 patent infringement involving Apple. Now we have PanOptis case trial, indicating that at least in this case, H.264 FRAND-related costs are not restricted.
Obviously, if the technology of Huawei violapses is indeed posted by Panoptis, then this judgment is correct. However, these two judgments show that the standard development process has been broken. A company should be able to fully master a technology and know how much it will spend; this is like how we buy everything from natural gas to grocery. The current standard development process not only prevents this, but also promotes the opposite behavior, such as the technology finally determines the emergence of the patent pool after four years.
This is why the presence of (AOM) groups such as the Open Media Alliance. Again, this is the reason HEVC into trouble, is why the next generation of multi-purpose video codec (VVC) may be faced with the same predicament, or at least failed to give full play to their potential reasons. Unless improve how their policies MPEG technology can be used commercially, otherwise the situation will not improve. Read the full text of the original title: H.264 FRAND royalties from Android equipment manufacturers affected by restrictions
Article Source: [Micro Signal: Livevideostack, WeChat public number: microwave radio forum] Welcome to add attention! Please indicate the source of the article.
Our other product:
