[M4IF Discuss] More Rampant Speculation

[Rob Koenen]

Craig, all,
I don't see why it is our business to understand how the licensors
(not "how MPEGLA") come to their decisions. It is our business to 
discuss if these decisions work in the market. 
Yes, ther is a great deal riding on this, but it rides on the terms 
themselves, not on the process that created them. 
This is in the same category as discussing which internal processes 
led Apple to come to its recent decision on MPEG-4 licensing, or 
which process led to Envivio's MPEG-4 pricing. 
> How many of the companies with patents that are essential to MPEG-4 
> visual also hold essential patents to MPEG-2?

That's easy. Compare
http://www.mpegla.com/news_release31Jan2002.html
and http://www.mpegla.com/l_patentlist.html
> ISO/MPEG and the ITU have formed the Joint Video Team to develop a 
> new video codec for MPEG-4, currently called 26L. Based on 
> information I have seen, there appears to be a desire by many parties 
> to offer this codec on a royalty free basis.

There exists a common desire by many parties to have MPEG-4 free of
royalties, too. Draw your own conclusions.
I would like to keep the discussion to understanding if the currently
announced scheme works or not. To understand such, I would like to see
concrete examples, especially for claims that it doesn't work. E.g., I
recently heard someone claim that for a specific example with a short
clip + advertisement, the royalty would be 90% of the profit margin.
(Checking that one now). That's the kind of calculations I like to see.
Best,
Rob