That is the most illuminating post I've ever seen on this issue. And, it is great to find a developer that is willing to take time, make effort to explain what is going wrong inside the -black box- with the Dolby "double-D" logo.
-> The patents expire
Note this is 5.1 flavors. The exact dates are hard to figure out.<-So... I figured this out: You (& all the world) should be free to include legacy Dolby Digital 5.1 decoding/encoding in your application as of: _Now_. To be certain, the date would be anytime after January 1, 2017. Realistically, the last thing Dolby wants is to invite awareness of this fact. Therefore, with less than 90 days left to initiate a legal challenge, Dolby would be well advised to remain silent.
-> Next another very interesting thing happened in 2016. Apple included support for native AC3/EAC3 decode...<-
Which suggests Apple's army of patent lawyers has determined that the majority of patents had already expired and whatever (if any?) remained was inconsequential. Furthermore, since you mention "EAC3", those patents are mostly still in force, but perhaps not enough "force" to make a legal challenge: certainly, not against Apple.
Below, are references with excerpts to support my statements. And, I found them very interesting reading, for a number of reasons:
https://www.quora.com/When-do-Dolbys-AC ... r-required
Dolby has stated in SEC filings that the "Dolby Digital" package generally expires by 2017:
"Patents relating to our Dolby Digital technologies, from which we principally derive our licensing revenue, have begun to expire and the remaining patents relating to this technology generally expire between now and 2017 ."
To my question of "what happened between Dolby and Netflix in 2010?", the above link provided another reference which put that question into perspective and makes a conclusion fairly obvious:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/959871- ... g-in-dolby
One last question. How much of Dolby's licensing revenues comes from Dolby Digital technologies that expire in 2017?
A: That last question stumped us to. Dolby does not breakout its licensing revenues by technology type. Investors relying on Dolby's SEC filings do not know what percentage of licensing revenues come from Dolby Digital, Dolby Digital Plus or one of their newer technologies. This is analogous to Pfizer not disclosing to investors how much revenue came from Lipitor prior to expiration.
[Note: the above website requires a "sign-in" to view full article. It is worth doing so, IMHO.]
The first site I referenced also includes a link to a web-log, which software developers (in particular) should find useful, since it relates directly:
http://blog.hobbyistsoftware.com/2014/1 ... l-threats/
...Dolby claim that playing sound encoded in those codecs would breach their patents. Although this is arguable – it isn’t in practice something I can fight.
-> To pass DD licensing, you have to pass their test suite of encoding. They do the test and get out their pass/fail stamp depending on how you handle the test files. Think on this for a bit <-
I'm not certain of your point, perhaps because I'm focused on another angle. My thought is that if you receive compensation for a product or service, and you go further and certify that what was provided -works-, then virtually all liability has been accepted by the provider: Dolby, in this case. Contrast this with Microsoft, etc., that force usage agreements that pass all liability to the users. Software companies and the like can get away with this. Does not work where personal injury or loss of life is possible: see General Motors, or any aircraft manufacturer. I have a slight amount of sympathy for Dolby, since it appears they will suffer the most consequences as a potential of fallout from the Netflix association.
-> ...We prefer to do it a smart way... <-
Perhaps, this is the point where MrMC steps up and provides legacy Dolby Digital 5.1 full support? If not now, please consider offering it in the near future.
You've made my day!
Walker
