[M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4

[Craig Birkmaier]

At 10:25 PM -0800 2/23/02, Yuval Fisher wrote:
>In my opinion, "powerful multi-national corporations" have just as much
>right to return on their investment as the garage inventor. The
>transistor, FORTRAN, and a multituteof other innovations have come from
>"powerful multi-natioal corporations," and they earned their license
>fees.

Let me be a bit more clear.
I agree that anyone has a right to profit from their inventions, 
including big corporations that have large and expensive research 
labs. I would suggest that the inventions you cited provide good 
examples of the original intent of patent law. The companies involved 
worked hard to proliferate these technologies and licensing terms 
were established that encouraged the proliferation of the 
technologies.
I have also been using a rather broad brush in these discussions, 
covering all forms of intellectual property including copyrights, not 
just patents. IMHO copyrights are being abused to a greater extent 
than patents today, but I grow very concerned when I see patents 
being used to create revenue models that parallel copyright, 
especially as it relates to the distribution of content - e.g. the 
current MPEG-4 visual usage fee proposal.
U.S. Copyright law has been "updated" 11 times in the past 40 years; 
each time the terms of copyright have been extended, leading to what 
amount to perpetual cash flows for the big media corporations. This 
does not stimulate research or creative effort; it does just the 
opposite. The big record labels are milking their archives and 
spending less each year developing new acts. And now, these acts have 
simply become "works for hire." The people doing the creative work 
have a secondary interest to the corporations they are "creating for."
Much the same can be said about the patents issued to big 
corporations. My name is on several patents, but I will never see a 
dime in royalties from any of them. Corporations direct their 
employees to do their bidding, and now seek patents on anything that 
might stick. And when they get lucky, they often behave like bandits. 
The current litigation between Brittish Telecom and Prodigy is an 
excellent example. BT thinks they have a choke-hold patent on 
hyperlinking; but they have never done anything significant in the 
marketplace with the underlying IP.
Patents are supposed to encourage the proliferation of technology. 
They should not be used to restrict access to a technology, or to 
protect the marketplace interests of the IPR holder(s), although this 
has happened frequently in the past century.
All of that being said, it is also clear that we are entering a new 
era with respect to Intellectual Property rights and their 
management. The Internet is the most potent technology every created 
for the rapid proliferation and sharing of information, including 
digital media content. It threatens many traditional business models, 
while at the same time, creating new opportunities for entrenched 
interests to extend their control over the consumption of content. 
Once again, MPEG-4 usage fees are a prime example.
We are a a crossroads. On one hand, consumers are fed up with efforts 
by the big media conglomerates to "tax" every use of the content that 
they have PAID FOR. But this does not seem to be intimidating these 
companies and the industries that provide the support infrastructure. 
Every day we see more law suits, more legislative proposals, and more 
overt efforts to gain "perfect control" over the distribution of 
content.
In response to the traditional ways of doing business we have seen 
some very powerful new concepts emerge, riding the personal computing 
and Internet waves. We have seen huge industries and vast wealth 
created through the rapid proliferation of inventions. When royalties 
are charged, they pale in significance to the value of the commerce 
that is enabled. We now see the open source movement - a communal 
effort to promote the rapid evolution of software based products. And 
we see the greatly expanded use of Defensive Publishing of 
inventions, to avoid being held hostage by patent pirates in the 
future.
This would ALL be academic, if not for the battles that are taking 
place RIGHT NOW in MPEG. We are witnessing the misuse of patents on a 
grand scale, and overt efforts to control and protect the interests 
of these patent holders.
During my years of involvement in MPEG, I did not win much favor when 
I would point out how the MPEG-2 process was co-opted to the 
interests of large companies that control most of the markets for 
professional video production gear, and the consumer electronic 
products used to consume video content. My warnings that these 
companies would use their market power and Intelectual Property to 
disadvantage MPEG-4 were often greeted with disbelief.
I take no comfort in knowing that I was right.
We are now seeing the next round in this battle for control playing 
out in the work of the JVT.
I'll end this rant with a simple question. IF the concept of 
developing a royalty free standard is so disconnected from reality, 
can you explain why it is featured so prominently in the rules of 
engagement for the JVT?
-- 
Regards
Craig Birkmaier
Pcube Labs