[M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4

[Craig Birkmaier]

At 10:28 PM +0100 2/22/02, AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/HDM wrote:
>  > Again, if you ask, you may just find that some of the patents issued
>>  in the '90s are not as essential as you think. The problem is that
>>  many of the JVT members are going to do everything in their power to
>>  make certain that the MPEG-2 essential patents ARE used.; they have
>>  no motivation to examine alternatives, or to reach consensus on an
>>  alternative approach.
>So what ? You don't think that the new stuff has not been patented as well ?

Two points:
1. You may find that some of the essential technology for motion 
compensated prediction is about the enter the public domain. So the 
trick is to avoid using techniques that were patented in the early 
'90s that are just reaching their "half-life."
2. Clearly 26L is likely to include a variety of new coding 
techniques that have been patented in recent years. So it comes back 
to the issue of how the companies that control these patents want to 
be compensated.  Are they likely to follow the lead of those who have 
come up with the current MPEG-4 visual license proposal, or the lead 
of the marketplace, which is taking the very low cost or royalty free 
approach.
You and many others have invested a great deal of time and your 
employer's resources in MPEG-4. It would be a pity to see this 
investment diminished because the business model under which you are 
operating has become outdated.
>"bandits" ? We leave in a world where ownership of intellectual creation is
>recognized as a right (and in your country even more than others so you
>should be aware of that). Do you ask as well for content companies to give
>their content free ? No, there is no still free lunch in this world. That's
>life (but we can still quote "Imagine" as Leonardo did in the last MPEG
>plenary ;-)

What is happening in my country is the primary reason I used the term 
"bandits." The original intent of patent law and copyright has been 
subverted to the interests of lawyers and powerful multi-national 
corporations who are looking for perpetual cash flows rather than 
making money the old fashioned way...by earning it.
I have no problem with fairly compensating inventors for their work. 
I have major problems when Intellectual Property is used to block 
innovation or to compensate those who are in the business of buying 
patents  and using them to profit from the legal system rather than 
the marketplace.
As a developer of standards that have the potential to have enormous 
positive economic impact on emerging markets, you must shoulder some 
responsibility for due diligence when IP is incorporated into the 
standards you are creating. When a standards process is co-opted to 
serve the business interests of participants the value of the 
standards that result is diminished.
And it is important to recognize marketplace realities. Incredible 
wealth has been created in recent decades by creating open markets 
where technology is "free" to evolve, driven by innovation rather 
than the decisions of executives and lawyers who are seeking to 
protect lucrative franchises.
One can make well reasoned arguments that the current practices 
associated with the traditional approach to intellectual property are 
outmoded. Rather than stimulating creativity and innovation the 
traditional approach often stifles it. When a new technology - like 
MPEG-4 - flourishes in the marketplace, it can be argued that 
everyone makes more money than when a few companies decide to seek 
compensation levels for their IP, which in turn causes the technology 
to flounder.
>
>And I am very suspicious when some people ask to give for free what they
>don't own
>(OK, I am starting rampant-speculating as well).

This is certainly a fair concern. But I would humbly suggest that 
this is not a case of asking people to give something away for free, 
but rather to share in the greater wealth that is created by 
proliferating the technology.
-- 
Regards
Craig Birkmaier
Pcube Labs