H.265 Licensing Fees Examined / CEO Interview

Author: 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, 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.

**** *** ********** ****** ***** *.*** *********, ************:

[*** *.*** ******* *****] ******** * ******* ** ******** ********* on *** ******* ********* ** *** ****-******* ******. **** ******* on ******* *** ******** ****** ********

** **** ****?

** ***** **** *** *** ****** *******,***** ******, *** ********* ******* ************ *.*** ****** *******, ** ****** understand *.*** ********* *** ******** *******.

** **** ******, ** ******* *** **** ** *****, *** break **** *** ******* ** *** *.*** ********* **** ***** to *** ***** ************ ********.

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

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

*** **** ***************** *** *.*% ******* *************** ** ******** ****, ***** ************** ******** ** **** *****. ** ******* *** ******* ** the******** *** **** *****, ***** *** *** ** ****** * **** *********** ** H.265 ********** **** ********.

**** *.*% *** *** ********** ******** ** ** ******* ** companies **** *******. ** *** ********* ******* ***, ** **, this *** ***** ***** ** ***** *********, ***** *** *** have * ***-****** ******, *** *** **** ***-****** ******* *************.

*********** ** **** *** ****** ***** ** ********* *** *********** about ***** ********* ********* **** *** ********* ******** *****.

**** ****** *** **** ********** *******, *** ********** ** ********

***** **** ******** ******* ** *** ********** ** *** ******* requirements, **** ****** **** ***** *****, ********* *** ***.** ************ ***** ***** *****-***** ********* *** ***** ********-******* ************, and **** ******** **** ***** ******* ** ******** ****** ***** were ********** "***-********** *****" *** *** ********** ** *** ********* fees ****** *** ******-**** ******* *** *** ******* ******* (********* below).

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

*** **** ******* ******** ***-**** **** *** ******** *******, ** software *************, **** ********* ** *.*** ******* ***/** ******* ********. These **** **** **** ** ******* ** *** "********* **** and ***** *******" ********. ** ** * ***-**** ***, *** is ***** ** *** ******* *** ******* ***** **, ********** of ***** ** ** ************.

******** ******* **** ****** * *********, ***** *** ***** ** the ***** *****, *** * *** $*.** ***. ****** * countries, ***** *** *** *** ****** ** ****** *, **** a *** $*.**/****** ***.

***** ****** * ****** *** ******** ** *** ****** *** security, ********** ****** * ********* ******* *****, ******, *****, ****** and ***** ******. *******, ******** **** ** ***** *** **** sold **, *.*., *** ** ** ** ***** ***** *** higher ****** * ****.

*** ********* **** *** ***** ******* ******** *** * ******* annual ******* *** ** ***$**,***,***.

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

******* *** * ****** ******* ***, ********** ** ****.** ************ ***** ***** *****-****** ******** ******* *** **** ******** these **** ***** * ****** ***, **** ** **** ******* multiple *******, ******** *******, ***** *******, ** *** ***** *******.

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

********* ** *** ***, *** ********* ***** *** * ******* fee *** ******** ******, ********** ** ****** ** ********* *******, or ********* *******.

*** ******* ***** **** ** *.*** ******* ******** ** ***** software, ***** ******* * ******** ******* *** **** ****** ************. When ** *** ******* *** **** *** ****** ******** ** typically *******-**** **** *** ************, *** ************* *** *** ****** tracked, *** *** ********* ***** *** ** *********** ******* *** stated "** *** *****, ** ***** **** ** **** ***** ** find * ********** *** ******** ********."

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

********* ****** *** **** ********* ********** ** * ********* "******** owing ********* ** **** **** $**,*** ******** ** *** **** to ******* * ******* *********, ******* ** ******* **********". ****, in *******, ***** **** *** ****** ************ (***** ********* **** than ~**,*** ******* ********) ***** *** *** *** *.*** ********* fees *** ******** *******.

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

**** ********* ** **** ****** ********* ******-**** *******, ** ***** are **** **** ******* ********* ** "** **********" ***** *** companies ************ *.*** ****/****** ********, *** ********** *** **** ******* logo ** ******* *********. ****** **** *** ***** *** ********* that ********* ********** ******** ** ********, ** *** ********** ***-********* for ***** *******.

******* ******* ****** *** ** ******** *.*** ********

***** **** *************, **** ** *********, ************* ************** *** ******* **** (*** ******* ****) ** *.*** ******** to *.***, ***** ****** ** ** ******** ***** *** ** when ***** **** *** **********, ** **** *** ***** ***** will **. ************, ******** *********, ******* ***** *****-****** ** **-**** installed *************, ****** *** **** ************* ** ********* ********* **** for ************ *.*** ******** ** ******** ************* ** ***** ********, as *** **** ******* *** **** ** ***** ***** *** no ******* **** *** ********* ******** ****** *****.

** ***** ********* ************* *** *** ******* ** *.*** ********* requirements *** ***** ******** ** ******* **** ******* ** **** questions ** *** ******** *** ** *** ****.

*** ** **** *****, ***** ****** *** *.*** ******** ******, e.g., ******* (****** **** ** ** ********** *** *******) *** H.264 ***** ****** ***** * ****** ****** ********** ******* **** to ******* / *** *.***.

Comments (6)

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.

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

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?

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.

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

Very Informative article.

Much thanks for this update.

Login to read this IPVM report.
Why do I need to log in?
IPVM conducts unique testing and research funded by member's payments enabling us to offer the most independent, accurate and in-depth information.

Related Reports

Milestone Favorability Results 2019 on Jan 21, 2019
Milestone's favorability moderately strengthed, in new IPVM integrator statistics over their results from 2016. While the industry has been...
The IP Camera Lock-In Trend: Meraki and Verkada on Jan 18, 2019
Open systems and interoperability have not only been big buzzwords over the past decade, but they have also become core features of video...
Mobile Surveillance Trailers Guide on Jan 17, 2019
Putting cameras in a place for temporary surveillance where power and communications are not readily available can be complicated and expensive....
Avigilon Favorability Results 2019 on Jan 15, 2019
Since IPVM's 2017 Avigilon favorability results, the company was acquired by Motorola and has shifted from being an aggressive startup to a more...
Gorilla Technology AI Provider, Raises $15 Million, Profiled on Jan 15, 2019
Gorilla Technology is a Taiwanese video analytics manufacturer that recently announced a $15 million investment from SBI Group, saying this...
Pelco Favorability Results 2019 on Jan 11, 2019
Pelco had a significant favorability problem amongst integrators in our previous study (see 2016 Pelco results). Now, in the first edition of our...
NTP / Network Time Guide For Video Surveillance on Jan 10, 2019
Inaccurate time can lead to missing or inadmissible video, yet this topic is often overlooked, with cameras and servers left defaulted,...
H.265 / HEVC Codec Tutorial on Jan 08, 2019
H.265 support improved significantly in 2018, with H.265 camera/VMS compatibility increased compared to only a year ago, and most manufacturers...
IPVM Best New Products 2019 Opened - 70+ Entrants on Jan 07, 2019
The inaugural IPVM Best New Product Awards has been opened - the industry's first and only program where the awards are not pay-to-play and the...
CyberExtruder Face Recognition Profile on Jan 04, 2019
CyberExtruder offers 3D modeling face recognition software that they say provides quicker and more accurate matches than other 2D face recognition...

Most Recent Industry Reports

Cable Trenching for Surveillance on Jan 21, 2019
Trenching cable for surveillance is surprisingly complex. While using shovels, picks, and hoes is not advanced technology, the proper planning,...
Milestone Favorability Results 2019 on Jan 21, 2019
Milestone's favorability moderately strengthed, in new IPVM integrator statistics over their results from 2016. While the industry has been...
Intersec 2019 Live Day 1 - Massive China Presence on Jan 21, 2019
There’s a massive presence from Chinese or China-focused video surveillance firms, chiefly Hikvision, Dahua, Huawei, and Infinova, at...
The IP Camera Lock-In Trend: Meraki and Verkada on Jan 18, 2019
Open systems and interoperability have not only been big buzzwords over the past decade, but they have also become core features of video...
NYPD Refutes False SCMP Hikvision Story on Jan 18, 2019
The NYPD has refuted the SCMP Hikvision story, the Voice of America has reported. On January 11, 2018, the SCMP alleged that the NYPD was using...
Mobile Surveillance Trailers Guide on Jan 17, 2019
Putting cameras in a place for temporary surveillance where power and communications are not readily available can be complicated and expensive....
Exacq Favorability Results 2019 on Jan 17, 2019
Exacq favorability amongst integrators has declined sharply, in new IPVM statistics, compared to 2017 IPVM statistics for Exacq. Now, over 5 since...
Testing Bandwidth Vs. Low Light on Jan 16, 2019
Nighttime bandwidth spikes are a major concern in video surveillance. Many calculate bandwidth as a single 24/7 number, but bit rates vary...
Access Control Records Maintenance Guide on Jan 16, 2019
Weeding out old entries, turning off unused credentials, and updating who carries which credentials is as important as to maintaining security as...
UK Fines Security Firms For Illegal Direct Marketing on Jan 16, 2019
Two UK security firms have paid over $200,000 in fines for illegally making hundreds of thousands of calls to people registered on a government...

The world's leading video surveillance information source, IPVM provides the best reporting, testing and training for 10,000+ members globally. Dedicated to independent and objective information, we uniquely refuse any and all advertisements, sponsorship and consulting from manufacturers.

About | FAQ | Contact