

webm can contain VP8, VP9 or AV1 video streams. I guess if you mean webm with VP9 inside it could be one solution, though less efficient. Also Google donated VP9 and what they had for VP10 to the development efforts of of AV1, so if AV1 is found to be infringing it’s a negative signal for VP9 too…
Edit: Sorry I was a bit off-topic. I was thinking of the action that Dolby is currently taking against Snapchat for their AV1 use.





I thought those provisions were usually enforced among the members of a patent pool, to ensure that any licensing customer can trust in the pools word to not be shaken down a second time by an individual pool member later.
So since AM1 isn’t forming a patent pool to sell licenses, and Dolby isn’t part of the Alliance for Open Media, it wouldn’t really apply either way, no?
Oh wait, actually there is something like this, see point 1.3 here: https://aomedia.org/license/patent-license/