H.265 Licensing Fees Examined / CEO Interview

By Brian Karas, Published on Jul 14, 2016

Axis has repeatedly warned about H.265 licensing, most recently:

[The H.265 license model] includes a royalty on revenues generated on the content developed by any HEVC-enabled device. This royalty on content has prompted strong backlash

Is this true?

We spoke with the CEO of HEVC Advance, Peter Moller [link no longer available], the licensing company representing H.265 patent holders, to better understand H.265 licensing for security devices.

In this report, we examine why Axis is wrong, and break down the details of how H.265 licensing will apply to the video surveillance industry.

0.5% ******* *** **********

*** **** ******* ********** *** *.*% ******* royalty ******** ** ******** ****, after ******* ******* ******** ** **** model. ** ******* *** forming ** *** ******** *** **** *****, ***** *** *** to ****** * **** alternative ** *.*** ********** this ********.

**** *.*% *** *** originally ******** ** ** payable ** ********* **** Netflix. It *** ********* ******* how, ** **, **** fee ***** ***** ** VSaaS *********, ***** *** not **** * ***-****** charge, *** *** **** per-camera ******* *************.

*********** ** **** *** should ***** ** ********* and *********** ***** ***** companies ********* **** *** streaming ******** *****.

**** ****** *** **** Commercial *******, *** ********** To ********

***** **** ******** ******* is *** ********** ** any ******* ************, **** though **** ***** *****, confirmed *** ***. ** ************ ***** ***** VSaaS-style ********* *** ***** security-related ************, *** **** informed **** ***** ******* of ******** ****** ***** were ********** "***-********** *****" *** not ********** ** *** licensing **** ****** *** single-time ******* *** *** encoder ******* (********* *****).

Licensing *** ******** *** ********

*** **** ******* ******** ***-**** fees *** ******** *******, or ******** *************, **** ********* an *.*** ******* ***/** decoder ********. ***** **** into **** ** ******* as *** "********* **** and ***** *******" ********. It ** * ***-**** fee, *** ** ***** on *** ******* *** product ***** **, ********** of ***** ** ** manufactured.

[**** ** ****** *********]

******** ******* **** ****** 1 *********, ***** *** shown ** *** ***** below, *** * *** $0.80 ***.  ****** * countries, ***** *** *** not ****** ** ****** 1, **** * *** $0.40/device ***.  

***** ****** * ****** the ******** ** *** market *** ********, ********** Region * ********* ******* China, ******, *****, ****** and ***** ******. *******, products **** ** ***** and **** **** **, e.g., *** ** ** EU ***** ***** *** higher ****** * ****.

*** ********* **** *** ***** Devices ******** *** * maximum ****** ******* *** of ***$**,***,***.

******** ****** ********* *******

******* *** * ****** license ***, ********** ** type. ** ************ ***** ***** multi-sensor ******** ******* *** were ******** ***** **** incur * ****** ***, even ** **** ******* multiple *******, ******** *******, tiled *******, ** *** other *******.

******** ******** ********* *******

********* ** *** ***, *** companies ***** *** * ******* fee per ******** ******, ********** of ****** ** ********* cameras, ** ********* *******.  

*** ******* ***** **** ** H.265 ******* ******** ** their ********, ***** ******* a ******** ******* *** each ****** ************. **** it *** ******* *** that *** ****** ******** is ********* *******-**** **** the ************, *** ************* are *** ****** *******, the *** ********* ***** *** be *********** ******* *** stated "** *** *****, ** would **** ** **** faith ** **** * reasonable *** ******** ********."

First **,*** ******* ******** *** ****

********* ****** *** **** licensing ********** ** * statement "******** ***** ********* of **** **** $**,*** annually ** *** **** to ******* * ******* Agreement, ******* ** ******* exceptions".  ****, ** *******, means **** *** ****** manufactures (***** ********* **** than ~**,*** ******* ********) would *** *** *** H.265 ********* **** *** hardware *******.

Caveats ** *** *******

**** ********* ** **** report ********* ******-**** *******, as ***** *** **** HEVC ******* ********* ** "In **********" ***** *** companies ************ *.*** ****/****** profiles, *** ********** *** HEVC ******* **** ** product *********. ****** **** may ***** *** ********* that ********* ********** ******** in ********, ** *** considered ***-********* *** ***** reasons.

******* ******* ****** *** Be ******** *.*** ********

***** **** *************, **** as *********, ************* ************** *** ******* **** (and ******* ****) ** H.265 ******** ** *.***, there ****** ** ** concerns ***** *** ** when ***** **** *** applicable, ** **** *** final ***** **** **. Additionally, ******** *********, ******* using *****-****** ** **-**** installed *************, ****** *** fear ************* ** ********* licensing **** *** ************ H.265 ******** ** ******** functionality ** ***** ********, as *** **** ******* *** made ** ***** ***** are ** ******* **** for ********* ******** ****** video.

** ***** ********* ************* who *** ******* ** H.265 ********* ************ *** their ******** ** ******* HEVC ******* ** **** questions ** *** ******** and ** *** ****.

*** ** **** *****, other ****** *** *.*** adoption ******, *.*., ******* (though **** ** ** increasing *** *******) *** H.264 ***** ****** ***** a ****** ****** ********** without **** ** ******* / *** *.***.

Comments (6)

Undisclosed #1

IPVMU Certified | 07/14/16 06:01pm

Not surprising that HEVC Advance didn't mention their competitor the MPEG LA.

But the MPEG LA is the company that handles h.264 royalties today and is also the company who had the first patent portfolio for h.265. HEVC Advance was actually born of the discontent of some of the MPEG LA manufacturers.

In any event, the quandary is that buying a license from one does not mean one does not need one from another.

Peter Moller

In reply to Undisclosed #1 | 07/14/16 09:56pm

We appreciate Brian reaching out to HEVC Advance and taking the time to get the facts for IPVM Members. The issue of MPEG LA wasn't raised during the conversation. Please note that we don’t view MPEG LA as a competitor but rather as a complementary patent pool administrator. Our programs are quite distinct and while I hope patent owners join our program to the extent that such patent owners believe the MPEG LA program better meets their needs I hope they join MPEG LA. HEVC Advance was, in fact, born because many key patent owners did not believe that MPEG LA provided a ‘product’ that meet the needs of both patent owners and patent users and thus would not provide a long term solution to the market place. We believe that HEVC Advance does provide that balance. And while having two patents pools might not be as efficient as having one patent pool, it is almost certainly far more efficient than having to execute multiple bilateral license deals.
Pete Moller
CEO
HEVC Advance

Undisclosed #1

IPVMU Certified | In reply to Peter Moller | 07/14/16 10:24pm

Thanks Peter.

Does joining one patent pool excuse one from joining the other? Will some/most need to join both?

What are, in your opinion, the ramifications of Technicolor exiting both pools? Does this create a third entity to pay?

Peter Moller

In reply to Undisclosed #1 | 07/15/16 01:33pm

Each patent pool generally offers a license to a different set of essential patents. So to the extent a company determines it needs a license to both of those separate sets of patents then yes, they would need to join both patent pools. I would note that HEVC Advance has offered the opportunity for all of the MPEG LA licensors to join the HEVC Advance patent pool with no change in our royalty rate structure. If that was to happen then companies would only need to join the HEVC Advance patent pool to obtain a license to both sets of patents.

Concerning Technicolor, please note that Technicolor did not exit both pools, rather Technicolor did not join either pool. That is, they were never a licensor in either pool. I believe the ramifications of Technicolor not being a licensor in either pool is negligible. It is my understanding that Technicolor has a relatively modest portfolio of essential patents, so IF they sought licenses from companies in this market category and IF companies determined they needed a license to those patents, then I would expect the royalty rate would also be modest. In any event, the licensing group at Technicolor is a professional organization and I have no doubt that they will act responsibly and not hinder adoption of HEVC technology. And who knows, maybe they will reconsider and decide to join either HEVC Advance or MPEG LA in the future.

Undisclosed #1

IPVMU Certified | In reply to Peter Moller | 07/15/16 04:20pm

Concerning Technicolor, please note that Technicolor did not exit both pools, rather Technicolor did not join either pool. That is, they were never a licensor in either pool. I believe the ramifications of Technicolor not being a licensor in either pool is negligible.

Thanks Peter.

I was asking because of their own press release, which contains a fair amount of puffing:

TECHNICOLOR WITHDRAWS FROM THE HEVC ADVANCE POOL TO ENABLE DIRECT LICENSING OF ITS HEVC IP PORTFOLIO

Avatar

Youngmu Kim

07/28/16 04:03am

Very Informative article.

Much thanks for this update.

Read this IPVM report for free.

This article is part of IPVM's 6,592 reports, 889 tests and is only available to members. To get a one-time preview of our work, enter your work email to access the full article.

Already a member? Login here | Join now

Related Reports

Huawei HiSilicon Shortage Impacts Surveillance Manufacturers on Aug 14, 2020
Huawei acknowledged problems and challenges for its HiSilicon chip business,...
NDAA Compliant Video Surveillance Whitelist on Aug 10, 2020
This report aggregates video surveillance products that manufacturers have...
Hanwha and Hikvision Selling H.265 Without HEVC Licensing on Aug 19, 2020
IPVM has confirmed that Hanwha and Hikvision do not have H.265 licenses from...
US GSA Explains NDAA 889 Part B Blacklisting on Jul 31, 2020
With the 'Blacklist Clause' going into effect August 13 that bans the US...
The Future of H.266 For Video Surveillance Examined on Aug 17, 2020
First H.264, now H.265, is H.266 next? H.266 was recently announced amid...
Axis Exports To China Police Criticized By Amnesty International on Sep 21, 2020
Axis Communications and other EU surveillance providers are under fire from...
US Passes Uyghur Human Rights Law Condemning Mass Surveillance on Jun 18, 2020
The US government has passed the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act of 2020,...
Axis Compares Fever Camera Sellers to 9/11 on Sep 18, 2020
Axis Communications, the West's largest surveillance camera manufacturer, has...
Hikvision Illicitly Uses Back To The Future In Marketing on Jul 03, 2020
NBCUniversal told IPVM that Hikvision UK's ongoing coronavirus marketing...
17 Alarm Company Lawsuits Against Competitors Faking Them on Oct 06, 2020
Alarm companies suing rivals for faking them are commonplace, an IPVM...
Honeywell Warns of Huawei, Advocates Futureproofing on Aug 31, 2020
For years, Honeywell has profited from OEMing Dahua and using Huawei...
Thermology Expert: "95-99%" Doing Fever Screening Wrong, Unjustified Compensating Algorithms "Insane" on Aug 27, 2020
A thermology expert tells IPVM "95 to 99% of people" are doing fever...
Axis / Avigilon Patent Litigation Ends With 3 Invalidated Patents on Sep 09, 2020
The multi-year, multi-district patent litigation between Canon and Axis...
Ubiquiti Access Control Tested on Oct 21, 2020
Ubiquiti has become one of the most widely used wireless and switch providers...
CDW Sells School District 36 Low-Res, No Blackbody Hikvision Fever Cameras With Federal Funds on Oct 01, 2020
Mega IT distributor CDW sold low-resolution Hikvision fever cameras with no...

Recent Reports

ISC Brasil Digital Experience 2020 Report on Oct 23, 2020
ISC Brasil 2020 rebranded itself to ISC Digital Experience and, like its...
Top Video Surveillance Service Call Problems 2020 on Oct 23, 2020
3 primary and 4 secondary issues stood out as causing the most problems when...
GDPR Impact On Temperature / Fever Screening Explained on Oct 22, 2020
What impact does GDPR have on temperature screening? Do you risk a GDPR fine...
Security And Safety Things (S&ST) Tested on Oct 22, 2020
S&ST, a Bosch spinout, is spending tens of millions of dollars aiming to...
Nokia Fever Screening Claims To "Advance Fight Against COVID-19" on Oct 22, 2020
First IBM, then briefly Clorox, and now Nokia becomes the latest Fortune 500...
Deceptive Meridian Temperature Tablets Endanger Public Safety on Oct 21, 2020
IPVM's testing of and investigation into Meridian Kiosk's temperature...
Honeywell 30 Series and Vivotek NVRs Tested on Oct 21, 2020
The NDAA ban has driven many users to look for low-cost NVRs not made by...
Ubiquiti Access Control Tested on Oct 21, 2020
Ubiquiti has become one of the most widely used wireless and switch providers...
Avigilon Aggressive Trade-In Program Takes Aim At Competitors on Oct 20, 2020
Avigilon has launched one of the most aggressive trade-in programs the video...
Mexico Video Surveillance Market Overview 2020 on Oct 20, 2020
Despite being neighbors, there are key differences between the U.S. and...
Dahua Revenue Grows But Profits Down, Cause Unclear on Oct 20, 2020
While Dahua's overall revenue was up more than 12% in Q3 2020, a significant...
Illegal Hikvision Fever Screening Touted In Australia, Government Investigating, Temperature References Deleted on Oct 20, 2020
The Australian government told IPVM that they are investigating a Hikvision...
Panasonic Presents i-PRO Cameras and Video Analytics on Oct 19, 2020
Panasonic i-PRO presented its X-Series cameras and AI video analytics at the...
Augmented Reality (AR) Cameras From Hikvision and Dahua Examined on Oct 19, 2020
Hikvision, Dahua, and other China companies are marketing augmented reality...
18 TB Video Surveillance Drives (WD and Seagate) on Oct 19, 2020
Both Seagate and Western Digital recently announced 18TB hard drives...