AV1's Open, Royalty-Free Promise In Question As Dolby Sues Snapchat Over Codec (arstechnica.com)
(Friday March 27, 2026 @11:30PM (BeauHD)
from the cease-and-desist dept.)
- Reference: 0181131904
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/26/03/27/2129219/av1s-open-royalty-free-promise-in-question-as-dolby-sues-snapchat-over-codec
- Source link: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/03/av1s-open-royalty-free-promise-in-question-as-dolby-sues-snapchat-over-codec/
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica:
> AOMedia Video 1 (AV1) was invented by a group of technology companies to be an open, royalty-free alternative to other video codecs, like HEVC/H.265. But a lawsuit that Dolby Laboratories Inc. filed this week against Snap Inc. [1]calls all that into question with claims of patent infringement . Numerous lawsuits are currently open in the US regarding the use of HEVC. Relevant patent holders, such as Nokia and InterDigital, have sued numerous [2]hardware vendors and streaming service providers in pursuit of licensing fees for the use of patented technologies deemed essential to HEVC.
>
> It's a touch rarer to see a lawsuit filed over the implementation of AV1. The Alliance for Open Media (AOMedia), whose members include Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Mozilla, and Netflix, [3]says it developed AV1 "under a royalty-free patent policy ( [4]Alliance for Open Media Patent License 1.0 )" and that the standard is "supported by high-quality reference implementations under a simple, permissive license ( [5]BSD 3-Clause Clear License )."
>
> Yet, Dolby's lawsuit filed in the US District Court for the District of Delaware
[1] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/03/av1s-open-royalty-free-promise-in-question-as-dolby-sues-snapchat-over-codec/
[2] https://www.streamtvinsider.com/video/nokia-sues-amazon-hp-over-video-compression-technology
[3] https://aomedia.org/resources/The-Future-of-Innovation-is-Open/
[4] https://aomedia.org/about/legal/
[5] https://aomedia.org/license/software-license/bsd-3-c-c/
[6] https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Dolby_Snap.pdf
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing
> AOMedia Video 1 (AV1) was invented by a group of technology companies to be an open, royalty-free alternative to other video codecs, like HEVC/H.265. But a lawsuit that Dolby Laboratories Inc. filed this week against Snap Inc. [1]calls all that into question with claims of patent infringement . Numerous lawsuits are currently open in the US regarding the use of HEVC. Relevant patent holders, such as Nokia and InterDigital, have sued numerous [2]hardware vendors and streaming service providers in pursuit of licensing fees for the use of patented technologies deemed essential to HEVC.
>
> It's a touch rarer to see a lawsuit filed over the implementation of AV1. The Alliance for Open Media (AOMedia), whose members include Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Mozilla, and Netflix, [3]says it developed AV1 "under a royalty-free patent policy ( [4]Alliance for Open Media Patent License 1.0 )" and that the standard is "supported by high-quality reference implementations under a simple, permissive license ( [5]BSD 3-Clause Clear License )."
>
> Yet, Dolby's lawsuit filed in the US District Court for the District of Delaware
[6]PDF
alleges that AV1 leverages technologies that Dolby has patented and has not agreed to license for free and without receiving royalties. The filing reads: "[AOMedia] does not own all patents practiced by implementations of the AV1 codec. Rather, the AV1 specification was developed after many foundational video coding patents had already been filed, and AV1 incorporates technologies that are also present in HEVC. Those technologies are subject to existing third-party patent rights and associated licensing obligations." Dolby is seeking a jury trial, a declaration that Dolby isn't obligated to license the patents in questions under [7]FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) licensing obligations, and for the court to enjoin Snap from further "infringement."[1] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/03/av1s-open-royalty-free-promise-in-question-as-dolby-sues-snapchat-over-codec/
[2] https://www.streamtvinsider.com/video/nokia-sues-amazon-hp-over-video-compression-technology
[3] https://aomedia.org/resources/The-Future-of-Innovation-is-Open/
[4] https://aomedia.org/about/legal/
[5] https://aomedia.org/license/software-license/bsd-3-c-c/
[6] https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Dolby_Snap.pdf
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing
Dolby is run by fuckwads (Score:3)
by locater16 ( 2326718 )
They don't make technology, they're just a fanciful patent troll, all they make is threats. Fuck Dolby and anyone that pays them anything
Why are lawsuits allowed against end users? (Score:3)
The legal system needs changes. Why is an initial lawsuit being filed against one of many end users of this codec? It should be required that Dolby brings an initial lawsuit against the developer of the codec AOMedia. If they successfully win that lawsuit then they can start targeting end users who either don't appropriately licence said coded from the winner of the lawsuit or continue to use the codec and not switch to something else.
Re: (Score:2)
Snap should just be able to go into count and ask the judge to dismiss the lawsuit pending Dolby having a successful lawsuit against AOMedia directly. If Dolby is successful in that lawsuit then Snap can either a) Pay Dolby for licensing the codec. b) Discontinue use of the codec.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, from a legal point of view, AOMedia hasn't done anything against Dolby. It's simply created a video compression codec. It doesn't use the codec, it just publishes documentation on how to use it.
It's arguable, I guess, that by claiming their codec is royalty free without mentioning Dolby's patents, AOMedia may have caused harm to Snapchat. But that would mean Snap would sue AOMedia, not Dolby.
Does this suck? Yes. But unfortunately you can't just sue someone on the basis of "who's the bad guy",
Re: (Score:3)
From the legal doc, it appears that Dolby is suing snap for not signing a licensing agreement for other codecs it is using, and not primarily AV1.
IANAL and I only flipped through the case, but the claims are about specific patents that dolby thinks are used in codecs that snapchat is using on their site alongside AV1, which are covered by some large license pool Dolby is a member of, which snapchat refused to sign, despite being "invited" several times over. Perhaps there is a side to the case where method