Learn about Unified Patents here
Check out Unified Patents Objective PAtent Landscape OPAL tool
Read the Independent economic study for HEVC royalties
Shawn Ambwani LinkedIn profile
Related episode: VVC, HEVC & other MPEG codec standards
The Video Insiders LinkedIn Group is where thousands of your peers are discussing the latest video technology news and sharing best practices. Click here to join
--------------------------------------
Would you like to be a guest on the show? Email: thevideoinsiders@beamr.com
Learn more about Beamr
--------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT (edited slightly for readability)
Narrator: 00:00 The Video Insiders is the show that makes sense of all that is happening in the world of online video as seen through the eyes of a second generation codec nerd and a marketing guy who knows what I-frames and macro blocks are. Here are your hosts, Mark Donnigan and Dror Gill.
Mark Donnigan: 00:19 Well, welcome back to The Video Insiders. Dror, how you doing today? I'm doing great. How are you Mark? I am doing awesome. As always. I am super pleased to welcome Shawn Ambwani who is co-founder of Unified Patents and Shawn is gonna tell us all about what Unified Patents does and we're going to dive into, you know, just a really tremendous discussion. But Shawn, Welcome to the podcast!
Shawn Ambwani: 00:46 Hey guys. Thanks Mark. Thanks for, for allowing me to participate on your wonderful podcast. I look at this as similar to 'All Things Considered' and 'How I built this', two of my favorite podcasts.
Mark Donnigan: 01:01 Those are awesome podcasts by the way. What an honor? Yeah. Wow. The level that I expect you guys to be at in traffic very shortly. That's right. Well, we hope so to. Well, why don't you introduce yourself you know, and give us a quick snapshot of your background and then let's let's hear about what Unified Patents is doing.
Shawn Ambwani: 01:23 It's kind of a, I have an interesting I mean some might say not so interesting, but I think it's interesting background related to this area since, you know, the first startup that I did and the second one were all related to MPEG4. So I co-founded a company called Envivio, which way back when was actually one of the original MPEG4 companies when they just had simple profile actually out there doing encoders and decoders. And then I went to a Korean company called NexStreaming, which actually still exists, which is doing encoders as well, but more for the mobile space and decoders. So it's an area I'm quite familiar with. I wasn't really being an attorney back then. Now I'm kind of more of an attorney than I was back then, but I tried to avoid being an attorney as much as possible in general.
Shawn Ambwani: 02:16 And basically I helped co-found a company called Unified Patents. And what unified patents does is it gets contributions from member companies as well as it allows small companies to join for free and they participate in joining what we call zones. And these different zones are intended to protect against what we consider unsubstantiated or invalid patent assertions. And the goal of these zones is to deter those from occurring in the first place. So if you imagine the kind of a technology area, let it be content or let it be video codec in this case or other things as having a bunch of companies that have a common interest in maintaining, you know, patents and ensuring patents that are asserted in that space are valid, which means that no one invented the idea beforehand. And also that it's fairly priced and you know, people are explaining the rationale behind what they're doing and they're not basically just attempting to get people to settle out, not because the assertions are valid or good, but simply because the cost of litigation is so high when it comes to patents.
Shawn Ambwani: 03:35 And we want to deter that type of activity because there's been a lot of investment in that activity so far. In fact, most litigation's are by NPE's and so Unified started by doing those zones and, and, and we've have a bunch of them now. We just launched an open source zone in fact, but with you know, Linux foundation and OIN and IBM and others and the video codec zone was something that we were thinking about for a long time. It's something that I'm very familiar with from my past dealings with MPEG LA and other pools. And it was a big issue I think. And it has been a constant issue, which is how do you deal with multiple pools or multiple people asking for money in a standard? How do you deal with the pricing of it? Especially if you're smaller entities and you don't have the information that may be larger companies might have.
Shawn Ambwani: 04:26 How do you deal with that and how do you deal with all the invalid assertions that are being done or declarations that occur in this area? How do you figure out who you have to pay? And how much you have to pay. All these add a level of complexity to deploying these standards, which makes adoption harder and creates the uncertainty that causes people to go to proprietary solutions, which I think is a negative in the end. So that's why Unified Patents really created this area and created the video codec zone. And basically we've been pretty, I think, successful so far now actually going through and doing each one of the things we said we were going to do.
Dror Gill: 05:06 So what, what are those things basically when you set up a zone and, and want to start finding those patterns that may be invalid how do you go about doing that? What is the process?
Shawn Ambwani: 05:18 Yeah, so I mean there's two major things in the SEP zones that it's not, it's not just about finding invalid patents, although I can tell you it's relatively easy to find invalid patents in any of these zones. That's not a difficulty. The hard part is figuring out which ones to go to or which ones are going to be the most interesting to go after. And that takes a lot of art. Essentially identifying them, finding out good prior art that we feel comfortable with, hiring good counsel. There's all kinds of weighing mechanisms that go into it, who the entity is, how it came about, how old the patents are, where it came from. All of these variables go into that kind of equation of when we decide. What's kind of unique about the way we work is we work independently of our members, so our members are funding these activities and some join for free.
Shawn Ambwani: 06:11 So we have a number of members of the video codecs and we use all this money and information in our activities to basically go back and decide what to do, with the objective of deterring you know, what we consider bad assertions in this space. And then that's one part of it. The other part of it is that SEP's are all about, you know, an area called FRAND, fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory. And part of all of that involves negotiation. And so what we provide are tools to allow companies to negotiate we think in a fair and more transparent way to licensors as to pricing. But also explaining why the pricing is the way it is. Because one of the problems that we've had in the big picture is that a lot of these licensors have been asking for money, whether their own pools, whether outside of pools, whatever.
Shawn Ambwani: 07:12 But no one can really explain why the price is what it is. And I think that leads to a lot of people to just stop paying or stop wanting to get into licensing discussions. And that's not beneficial for the market. And so by explaining how the price comes out the way it is and providing a very, we consider, solid methodology for it, it allows our members but also licensors to better understand who owns what and how much value is in the standard. So what they should reasonably expect to get for that technology and how much licensees reasonably should expect to pay in order to deploy the technology.
Mark Donnigan: 07:55 Now my question, you know, Shawn is when you are getting into these conversations with the parties or party that, you know, owns this IP and I'm speaking more around sort of the pricing and the model and that sort of thing. Are you then...is that information available to your members or is it more that you're sort of helping facilitate, helping bring some rationality, you know, so that then that body can turn around and make public: "Hey, great news!" We've decided that all digitally distributed content doesn't carry, you know, a royalty cost. What exactly, I guess what my question is, what exactly is, is your role then in informing the market?
Shawn Ambwani: 08:40 I think that, well, I mean there's a number of things to talk about, but what's I think most important is that we, you know, we don't know necessarily what the right price is. We hired an outside economist to look into that and he came back with a pricing range in you know, a report that we gave the highlights too and there was some press over and it's on our website but you can also look at it through a number of particles and basically he came back with a price of between 8 cents and 28 cents I believe if I'm accurate. Is what he believed the estimate to be for the value of the technology including everything. And it ranged based on I think the device and like other factors and stuff like that. Now that high level information we provided publicly and in fact we provided the information on who made the report when it was created and what it was based on.
Shawn Ambwani: 09:38 And we even provided kind of the overall methodology of how it was done, which is basically being used at a very high level. They used MPEG LA's AVC license as the starting point or the foundation for deciding what HEVC in this case, which is what he was looking at, pricing should be based on his expert analysis. And then he modified that based on switching costs based on the cost of bandwidth, the cost of storage and quality and other factors basically that are valuable. So, that's where we went. Now, what's important to understand is that we published that information so anyone could take a look at the, at the high level. And the methodology pretty much tells you the roadmap of where we started and how we ended up where we are. The other part is how do you decide who you have to pay and how much each person gets. Even assuming that you figure out that, let's say it's 25 cents, that you think the royalty rate should be for it. And I'm not saying that's the number, but everyone can decide on whatever number they feel comfortable. Our expert created this report and we published it. Other people can create other reports and I'm sure they have their own kind of versions. But what's important for us is that, you know, people should explain why they came out with their pricing. And unfortunately in pools and licensing organizations in general, that just doesn't happen.
Dror Gill: 11:05 So basically you're finding economical reason behind a certain price for for this technology. In this case, HEVC. And now companies who want to use HEVC, how do they use this number? Because they have your number, which is the total, and then they have royalty rates that are asked that, you know, certain patent pools are asking and they add up to a different number that could be a higher number. So do they just you know, divide the number that they think is the right one among the different patent pools and pay them the amount they think they should pay or do they just use it as a negotiating tool when they talk to them and, and you know, and negotiate the actual world, the rates that they will have to pay?
Shawn Ambwani: 11:52 By providing a lot of this information. Some of it publicly like economic report in some format. The hope is that smaller entities instead of rolling over when licensing people come by and say, Hey, take it or leave it, they really have an ability to make a fair response, a good faith response with information that allows them to then basically justify why they came up with a price and really push back and say, listen, you know, this is what my methodology came out to. Now. It could be right, could be wrong. You know, in the end in FRAND negotiations, I have to make a good faith offer. That's really the intent. So that's an important aspect of pushing back on this kind of, we think less information that is occurring in the marketplace and more fragmentation. And I think they're all interrelated because of the less information you have more fragmentation. Cause if everyone could agree on a price and everyone agreed that this is the fair value for the technology, there really wouldn't be multiple pools in my opinion or multiple licensors, because everyone would know what the number is. And so why would you separate?
Dror Gill: 13:07 But basically you're saying that even if a patent pool set, the royalty rates and those royalty rates in some cases are public, at least for some of the patent pools, this is not what a licensor would pay. This is just kind of a starting point for a negotiation and you're providing tools for this type of negotiation.
Shawn Ambwani: 13:23 We also think that validity is a big issue because none of these entities look at validity when they're incorporating patents into their pools or into their licensing. It's really up to the licensees or the people who are potentially taking the license to have the responsibility to go out and figure that out, which can be very, very costly.
Dror Gill: 13:44 You assume they're valid, right? If they're licensing patents to you, you assume that they're licensing valid patents. Right? These are kind of, you know, respectable patent holders and patent pools. Why would they license something that's not valid?
Shawn Ambwani: 13:57 I mean, it's a great point. I mean, the argument would be that they want to license patents.
Mark Donnigan: 14:03 That's their business at the end of the day. Yeah.
Shawn Ambwani: 14:08 Right. So, you know, if you had a car and you're trying to sell a car, you're going to accentuate the good things about the car. Not that it's a rebuilt or something like that or you know, like it's, it's been, you know, it's been in a crash or accident like, yeah. Like you're going to show what you want to show. Right. And that's natural in any of these cases. The unfortunate fact is that it's very costly to figure out that stuff and there's no really organization you'd think a licensing organization like MPEG LA or others. And I'm not saying MPEG LA is doing a bad job necessarily, I'm just pointing them out as an example, would do a better job of vetting to some degree on that type of activity. But they don't, and I think there's a number of reasons
Mark Donnigan: 14:53 Why do they want to do that? I almost liken this to the 500 channel cable bundle of which there's about 15 high quality channels and there's 485 that are anywhere from just a, you know, not, not relevant, not interesting to, you know, to even lower quality than that, but, but you know, but Hey, I got a 500 channel bundle, right? So I feel like, wow, it must be worth $100 a month, you know, or whatever.
Shawn Ambwani: 15:23 The idea that that licensing organizations like MPEG LA or (HEVC) Advance or other ones like that aren't doing it to the benefit of their licensors. It just seems ridiculous to me. I mean the people on their, on their management and the people who are actually owning that organization, typically it's managed and owned and administrative fees are paid to licensors. And traditionally the money flows one way from licensees to licensors. It's for the benefit of the licensors. And the rules that they put in are essentially to make sure that those guys are protected. They have no incentive in general of saying people's patents are invalid. And, and that's just a bad fact pattern for them. If basically they get back and say, Hey, listen this patent... Yeah, no, it's bad.
Mark Donnigan: 16:16 Exactly. So, so in that context then it completely makes sense that they don't vet you know, at the level that you are and why, you know, Unified Patents needs to exist, you know, is because we need this sort of independent third party. I guess. I, I, you know, that's, that's out there doing this work. Now, Shawn, one of the things that I noticed is you're acting both against NPE's, so, non-practicing entities, and against SEP's. So standard essential patents. What are the issues with SEP's?
Shawn Ambwani: 16:51 Well, I mean the general assumption has been, and I don't know where this assumption came from, was that standard essential patents or people who declare their patents to be standard essential are more likely to be valid than other patents. And in the real world where there's litigation and there's challenges and things get checked out or vetted essentially, adversarially, the reality is that standard essential patents in all the studies that have been done fair, far worse, than normal patents do on average. And you know, it's not shocking actually when you think about it. Obviously there's a lot of self selection here, but part of the reason why is, you know, when you're submitting into pools or in when you're getting these patents, when part of a standardization body or doing other activities, there's a lot of other people involved and it's usually built on other ideas that people have had in the past.
Shawn Ambwani: 17:59 And it's not surprising that a lot of these patents have underlying ideas that had been done in the past or other people had brought up previously. Sometimes they weren't accepted, sometimes they were or sometimes they were put on hold. Who knows? But there's a lot of prior art oftentimes in these areas. These aren't open fields, these aren't brand new innovations that typically come up. And so that's not surprising. Now, you know, there's also a general belief that standard essential patterns are more valuable. And I think, you know, that's a pretty, I would say, you know, I dunno if it's absolutely valid, but it's not unreasonable to believe that if you declare a patent, as standardized, if you look at the average patent and compared to that patent, it's probably your, it's probably more valuable, at that point. Because you basically said it's part of a standard that people are probably going to adopt at that point versus a patent in general, which you never know most of the time, whether anyone's going to use that patent.
Shawn Ambwani: 19:02 I mean the vast majority of patents are never actually used in any way whatsoever. They're not enforceable because they're just ideas that people have most of the time, and these patents are arguable more likely than not to be in a standard and that standard might or might not actually get used in the end. Inherently you get - they're more valuable. The problem is there's tons of over declaration that occurs in this area. There's very little incentive. I mean some places there's more of an incentive than others, but the way MPEG works specifically is that you can do blanket declarations and so you don't have to declare specific patents. And, other standards, you have to basically declare each individual patent that you have. So, I mean, there's all kinds of trade offs, and all these different things, but the reality is that no one really knows exactly how many patents need to be licensed. And that just creates a lot of uncertainty. And you know, a lot of companies who are trying to make money, not off products but off of doing licensing thrive on uncertainty because that's where they can make money. Is basically by, you know, saying, okay, well who knows what can happen, but if you take care of me now, I can make sure that I'm not going to cause you issues.
Dror Gill: 20:23 Right. And that's why uncertainty is in the middle of FUD, fear, uncertainty, doubt, which is one of those tactics and uncertainty is definitely a big part of that.
Shawn Ambwani: 20:33 Yeah. I mean, the other thing is that companies in general, it seems like a one way street a lot of the time, which is pretty unfortunate in that although I'm not sure if I have a good solution, you know, a lot of companies, the licensors have a way of getting together, agreeing on a price and then licensing through an organization like MPEG LA or others to do that type of activity or Velos (Media), or whatever it is. They choose, you know, they can select a price, they can work together, agree on a price. And the reason why they can do that according to the DOJ is because it's a different product than what's available before. So it decreases uncertainty by making it easier for people to take a license of convenience for that specific technology area.
Dror Gill: 21:21 Otherwise, it might might've been considered price setting,
Shawn Ambwani: 21:24 Right? Yeah. It would be considered price. It would be considered price setting. But in this case, the argument is always that you can always go to each individual company and get a license or negotiate a separate license. This is a license of convenience for this technology area from all these companies for one price. And that makes it a lot easier for people on both sides to be able to know exactly how much they're going to be getting and how much they're going to have to pay for clearing this risk. Which makes sense. I fundamentally have no problem with pools and what they do. The, the issue comes up is that a lot of these pools, A) don't talk about the pricing, they don't look at the validity. They don't really have a great essentially checking on top of it. And they're very much incentivized to help out the licensors, not the licensees figure stuff out. And what ends up happening is over time you kind of, and you have companies also that are not interested in making products, which is unfortunate. They're just interested in making money off of their licensing. Which is unfortunate because there's a lot of games that can be played in the standardization world to get your stuff in and then get your patents in basically.
Mark Donnigan: 22:44 Well, it ultimately, it, it stops innovation. I mean, at the end of the day, you know, and one thing, and Dror and I have talked about this on episodes and we've certainly talked about this a lot, you know, privately within Beamr is, you know, it's a little bit mystifying as well because okay, so HEVC clearly was set back as a result of, of many issues. But you know, largely what we'd been talking about for the last 35 minutes and the adoption of HEVC. And yet these people, as you point out, the licensors, they don't make money if nobody's using the technology. So, so what's mystifying to us is that this is not, you know, it's not like somehow they're getting paid still. You know, even though the adoption of the technology is not in place or it's not being used, they're not getting paid. And so it seems like at some point, you know, a rational actor would stand up and say, wait a second, I'd rather get something rather than nothing! But, it's almost like they, they're not acting that way.
Dror Gill: 23:46 But, but it did happen. They did reduce the royalty rate. Yes, yes, yes. Certainly. And they did come to their senses and they did put a cap and then initially it was uncapped and they did remove royalties from content. And you know, they did a lot of things in the right direction after the pressure from the market when they realized they're not going to get anything. And when AV1 started to happen, you know, and they were pressured by that, by a competing codec that was supposedly a royalty free and didn't have these issues. So I think the situation is improved. But you've launched a specific zone. It's called the video codec zone, but basically right now it deals only with HEVC.
Shawn Ambwani: 24:33 A lot of these patents that we've challenged relate not just to HEVC but potentially to AV and other codecs like AVC as well. Cause there's such overlap between these things. That's why we generically call it a video codec zone. So, obviously a lot of the things that we've looked at in like the economic report and everything else and landscape, a lot of the focus has been on HEVC.
Dror Gill: 24:59 So you examined the HEVC and and you saw this situation that you have three patent pools. One of them hasn't even announced the royalty rates and, and you have a lot of independent patent holders who claim to have standard essential patents for HEVC. And this is kind of your, you're opening a, a situation. So what, what was the first thing that, that you did, how did you start to, to approach the HEVC pattern topic and what actions did you take?
Shawn Ambwani: 25:34 Like I said, we've done a bunch of different stuff. We had a submission repo called open, which where we collated all the prior art, not prior art, but submissions into the standard for HEVC and AVC and other standards from MPEG so people can make it easily searchable. In fact, 50% of the priority art that we got for our patent challenges came from the submission repo, which is great, which is basically, you know, previous submissions to the same standard. We have OPAL, which is our landscape tool. And then, you know, obviously we have OPEN which is our evaluation report that I mentioned for HEVC. And then we did a bunch of reviews of validity and challenged a bunch of patents in different licensing entities. I mean, Velos, I think they don't consider themselves a pool. Just to be clear.
Dror Gill: 26:29 Because they actually own the patents. They've licensed those patents on their own?
Shawn Ambwani: 26:34 Well, I think they just don't consider themselves tackling a patent pool in the way that MPEG LA and HEVC Advanced does simply that would throw them into a different bucket and they would have all kinds of requirements on them that they don't want basically. So you know when the DOJ kind of made the rules or kind of the lawyers decided what the right rules are to make it work, you know like you've got to show your stuff. Basically you got to show your price, you've got to make sure it's reasonable or it's, you know, like there's, there's no most favored nation clause. I mean there is a most favorite nation (MFN) let me rephrase this. So all these things to make sure that everything is very transparent in order to allow this kind of companies to get together and set a price for how much they want to license for it, which typically would have huge anti-competitive or antitrust issues. Right. They made all these rules and Velos I think would not consider themselves technically a patent pool like those guys because that would make them have the similar requirements.
Dror Gill: 27:40 So they're like an independent patent holder?
Shawn Ambwani: 27:42 I don't really know what they call themselves. I've definitely never heard them say that they're a patent pool. I've heard other people call them a patent pool. I probably have at some point, but I don't really know if they actually consider themselves a patent pool
Dror Gill: 27:55 Because I noticed that your litigation was against the patent holders. Companies like GE and KBS and against Velos Media itself. Yeah.
Shawn Ambwani: 28:07 Yeah. Well Velos is you know, an unusual beast in that it owns a number of patents that got transferred to it as well as it provides licenses to the people who participated. You know, the other patent holders in general are much more traditional in their patent pool type activity in that the patent holders are different from the people who are doing the licensing.
Dror Gill: 28:28 And you're not suing the patent pools like MPEG LA and HEVC Advanced or not your targets?
Shawn Ambwani: 28:32 Well, they don't own patents directly, so really nothing to do as far as I know. I mean, you could say, you know, part of it is we're challenging them to a certain degree on their pricing and kind of their whole model of not looking at validity by challenging some of their patents as well as, you know, putting them on notice that as they get more patents in, we might challenge further patents for validity. So why don't they do it ahead of time? I mean, the idea that, you know, validity is a victimless crime if you don't check for validity, it doesn't hurt anyone. It's just not true in my opinion. It's just not true because you are hurting the people who actually innovated. There's a set amount of money that goes to everyone. If you have a bunch of patents and they're just like, you're checking for essentiality before you allow a patent in, you check for validity because there's a bunch of patents that just aren't valid that shouldn't be, they should not be making money off of. It just incentivizes people to get more invalid patents in the same space that they can stick into a pool to get a bigger share of it, like a giant game. Right?
Mark Donnigan: 29:43 Yeah, that's a really good point. I'm wondering what is the cost to test for essentiality? Is some of this just sort of practical like it's just either too time consuming or costly to test? Yeah. I mean
Shawn Ambwani: 29:58 Esentiality is often times more expensive than validity in some cases, but I mean they do test for essentiality. The companies pay to have their own patents tested often times for essentiality, but there is no test for validity that they enforce. So no one actually does it. You know, if they did ask for it, I'm sure people in some cases would pay for it, but more importantly, people who didn't think their patents would be found valid, probably wouldn't submit them in the first place then. Then there would be, there'd be huge disincentive for people who had that risk of that happening. They just wouldn't submit it, which you know, obviously it's going to hurt the pool because they get less patents. And at the same time, the hope is that people will think twice before they submit stuff they know is crap. Anyway.
Mark Donnigan: 30:43 So what is, what is your bar for determining low quality? I mean, what does that process look like?
Shawn Ambwani: 30:52 We have a bunch of patents that come into our hopper that we're constantly looking at in every single zone that we're in and we're constantly looking and seeing if it's a valid patent or not. And there's multiple ways of doing that. We have crowd sourcing that we do for that. We just pay people, you know, in order to do prior art experts for example, to do prior art searches. You can prior art search infinitely long these, there's no stopping. You know, what you can do. But you know, in the end there's only so much you can reasonably expect to find. And so from my perspective, you know, there's definitely been situations where we've looked at patents and we've said, okay, we don't think we have good prior art. We're just not going to do anything about it. And that's okay. In fact, I mean it's okay if a licensing entity or licensor has a valid patent, that's perfectly fine with me.
Shawn Ambwani: 31:49 I think if they have a valid patent, they should be able to make money off of it. I have no problem with, it should be a fair amount if it's in a standard based on FRAND principles, but in general, people should be able to make money off of a valid patent. The problem is is that a lot of people are making a lot of money, in my opinion, off of a lot of bad patents. And invalid patents, which hurts the people who actually do have good patents because they're getting crowded out, which is sad because that really is the disincentive for innovation then is when the people actually are innovating aren't making money off of it because they're getting crowded out by the people who are just playing a good game.
Dror Gill: 32:25 You described earlier the, the process with a standard setting bodies such as MPEG where you declare your patents but you only, you can declare them as, as a pool or as a bunch of patents and not specifically, and then you can basically,
Dror Gill: 32:40 You know, create a pool and charge as much as you want if it's under the FRAND principles. Do you think there's anything broken in the standard setting process itself? Do those committees need to do something else in order to make sure that when they create a standard, the situation of royalties of, of the situation of, of IP which is essential to that standard is more well known that you have less uncertainty in that IP?
Shawn Ambwani: 33:09 Yeah, I'm not sure. I mean there's always ways of like tweaking the system. Every standards body has different ways of managing it. I mean the only really clean way of doing it is saying it's royalty free and having anyone who participates in the standard agree that it's royalty free. Anything above that, just you know, you can play all these different types of rules and machinations and 3GPP has their own and other people, organizations have their own. But in the end it ends up being the same issue of you know, under declaring over declaring - issues with essentiality, validity, all kinds of other things. So I'm not sure if you, unless you go to that binary level, how much, you know, changing that up is going to change things fundamentally. I think the more fundamental thing is that, you know, the idea that I think the fundamental reason why you have these patent pools and other things like that was to clear risk and decrease uncertainty. Unfortunately I'd say uncertainty is actually increasing in some of these cases not decreasing by all these different groups asking for money at this point, which is unfortunate.
Dror Gill: 34:17 No, that's a very interesting insight, really.
Mark Donnigan: 34:19 Hey, thanks for joining us, Shawn. This was really an amazing discussion and we definitely have to have a part two.
Shawn Ambwani: 34:26 All right, well, thanks for your time, gentlemen. I really appreciate it.
Dror Gill: 34:28 Thank you.
Narrator: 34:30 Thank you for listening to The Video Insiders podcast, a production of Beamr Imaging limited. To begin using Beamr's codecs today, go to beamr.com/free to receive up to 100 hours of no cost HEVC and H.264 transcoding every month.
