[M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4

[Craig Birkmaier]

At 5:27 PM +0100 2/22/02, AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/REN wrote:
>  > And there is one simple way to proceed if you are serious about a
>>  royalty free standard:
>>  Impose a requirement that any essential IP be offered on a royalty
>>  free basis. Unfortunately I don't know if this is possible under ISO
>  > or ITU rules.
>
>Unfortunatly I don't think it is.

Perhaps you are mistaken about this.
Please direct your attention to:
ToR Joint Video Team.doc
Terms of Reference for a Joint Project between
ITU-T Q.6/SG16 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG11
for the Development of new Video Coding
Recommendation and International Standard
Sorry, but I do not know the MPEG document number or the server 
location(s) where it can be found.
In particular look at table 2 within the Patent Disclosure Form in Annex 3:
>Disclosure information - Submitting Organization/Person  (choose one box)
>
>  	2.0 The submitter is not aware of having any granted, 
>pending, or planned patents associated with the technical content of 
>the Recommendation | Standard or Contribution.
>
>or,
>
>The submitter (Patent Holder) has granted, pending, or planned 
>patents associated with the technical content of the Recommendation 
>| Standard or Contribution.  In which case,
>
>  	2.1 The Patent Holder is prepared to grant - on the basis of 
>reciprocity for the above Recommendation | Standard - a free license 
>to an unrestricted number of applicants on a worldwide, 
>non-discriminatory basis to manufacture, use and/or sell 
>implementations of the above Recommendation | Standard.
>
>  	2.2. The Patent Holder is prepared to grant - on the basis of 
>reciprocity for the above Recommendation | Standard - a license to 
>an unrestricted number of applicants on a worldwide, 
>non-discriminatory basis and on reasonable terms and conditions to 
>manufacture, use and/ or sell implementations of the above 
>Recommendation | Standard.
>
>	Such negotiations are left to the parties concerned and are 
>performed outside the ITU | ISO/IEC.
>
>  	2.2.1 The same as box 2.2 above, but in addition the Patent 
>Holder is prepared to grant a "royalty-free" license to anyone on 
>condition that all other patent holders do the same.
>
>  	2.3. The Patent Holder is unwilling to grant licenses 
>according to the provisions of either 2.1, 2.2, or 2.2.1 above.  In 
>this case, the following information must be provided as part of 
>this declaration:
>- patent registration/application number;
>- an indication of which portions of the Recommendation | Standard 
>are affected.
>- a description of the patent claims covering the Recommendation | Standard.

Apparently, you have all the information needed to determine the 
contributors intent with respect to any patents required for 
implementation of the 26L standard. What's more,  the mechanism is 
clearly in place to allow participants to contribute their IPR on a 
royalty free basis, by checking box 2.1 or 2.1.1 (provisional on all 
patent holders doing the same).
I am curious Olivier. You wrote:
>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 ;-)

I ask for a level playing field, and for the opportunity  for all 
interested parties to share in the success of a communal effort to 
provide consumers with the many benefits of standardization.
I do not ask for free content, but if it is provided freely in the 
context of one business model I do not accept restrictions on my 
rights under a different set of circumstances: The article by 
Lawrence Lessig that I posted earlier contains a very clear 
description of what I am talking about:
>We live in a world with "free" content, and this freedom is not an 
>imperfection. We listen to the radio without paying for the songs we 
>hear; we hear friends humming tunes that they have not licensed. We 
>refer to plots in movies to tell jokes without the permission of the 
>director. We read books to our children borrowed from a library 
>without any payment for performance rights to the original copyright 
>holder. The fact that content at any particular time is free tells 
>us nothing about whether using that content is "theft." Similarly, 
>an argument for increasing control by content owners needs more than 
>"they didn't pay for this use" to back up the argument.

It is hypocrisy for the music industry to use the "free" distribution 
and sharing of music via radio broadcasting to promote the sales of 
their products, then deny those who seek to build a similar business 
on the Internet the right to license their products on a 
non-discriminatory basis.
And it is hypocrisy for patent holders to create licensing terms for 
derivative products that disadvantage those derivatives relative to 
other products that incorporate the same IPR.
Leonardo has asked the participants in MPEG to "Imagine" what they 
could do by following a different path to a common goal - the 
successful proliferation of the products of your efforts.
This makes me wonder if he played John Lennon's song at the plenary, 
and if so, whether he paid the requisite usage fee?
-- 
Regards
Craig Birkmaier
Pcube Labs