His original publication from - https://arxiv.org/abs/1311.2540 . That work was a result of two years of research that was well documented, and was making noise in encoding community. His first notes on use ans for quick entropy coding date to 2008.
First production grade code was published under GPL at around late 2013 with explicit intention to enforce copyleftness of derived works, and the patent poison pill clause.
Jarek claims that Google has abruptly ended communications with him few month after the time of first code publication
Update: it seems Google never made any grants to the group, but were only vaguely feeding them with "may bees" for two years, while requiring more and more detailed "research scope declarations." It is better now to let Jarek give his own first hand account of what was going on in between his university and Google's research people
I'm not. I quite literally mean it. It's their purpose, it's why all these organizations (I cannot remember the names now) are created, isn't it? They don't design anything, they don't write code, they do talking and litigating, which might, for once, be actually useful.
> They don't design anything, they don't write code
I don't like the tone you've taken. I'll assume you're merely uninformed.
Stallman's organization, the FSF, was created to protect the open-source nature of things that he was a primary creator of or significant contributor to such as gcc and emacs.
The Python foundation was created by the creator of Python, and so on.
To claim that there is no creative endeavor in these entities is to ignore the fundamental reason they exist.
Google promising free license to anyone who implements AV1 would have been ok, if they patented something that is only useful for AV1. But they patented "using ANS for video" so now you can't use ANS in any competing video codec. In my opinion, people absolutely should fight to invalidate this patent using any work that mentions using ANS for video from a year (or more) before the filing.
This is incorrect, you are conflating algorithm patents and so-called "business method" patents (e.g. "$BUSINESS_ACTIVITY using the computer/internet").
Proper algorithm patents are supported in Europe because they are equivalent to a novel electronic circuit, which is generally viewed as patentable subject matter.
This seems to contradict directly with what user SquareWheel writes in another comment and who now seems to have deleted that comment.