From rkoenen intertrust.com Tue Jul 2 15:18:52 2002
From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen)
Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:31 2003
Subject: [M4IF Discuss] WEMP
Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF5B9B@exchange.epr.com>
Dear Jeff,
> Can anyone fill us in on late announcements or any impressive details
> from the show?
WEMP4 was interesting, but maybe not for the shocking announcements.
You already got a answer from Jose Alvear about SigmaDesign's new
tools, some of which can be freely downloaded.
The tutorials were very well visited and I believe also appreciated.
They made it abundantly clear that MPEG-4 is much more than a video
coding algorithm.
The presentations will be made available here:
http://www.m4if.org/wemp2002/downloads.php
There were some good things to see on the show, including a surprising
number of authoring tools for scene description and creating interactive
graphics.
More generally, things seem to be heating up. Below are some links
that recently got added to the M4IF website, www.m4if.org
Best,
Rob
Hot News
Download
Free Eval Kit of dicas' MPEG-4 Consumer Codec [dicas, 02 July 02]
Download
SigmaDesigns' Advanced Simple Video Codec [SigmaDesigns, 26 June 02]
STMicroelectronics joins MPEG-4 Industry Forum [M4IF,
26 June 02]
WEMP4 2002 was held in San Jose CA June
25-27, download the tutorials here
MPEG-4 in the News More
At Last - A
Hardware Decoder For MPEG-4 [Tom's HW Guide, 21 June 02]
Apple delivers on rack server promise [ZDNet, 01 July 02]
Motorola prepares to battle XScale [ZDNet, 01 July 02]
ATI joins Palm OS Ready Program
[infoSync, 27 June 02]
MPEG-4 Press Releases More
dicas
launches first fully MPEG-4-compliant consumer video codec [dicas, 02 July
02]
All-In-One Chip for Solid-State
Camcorders: MPEG-4 Video, AAC Audio, 4-Megapixel DSC [Divio, 27 June 02]
dicas and
Popwire partnering on MPEG-4 [dicas, 28 June 02]
Kasenna MPEG-4 Server
powers VOD for Sony in world's first IP v.6 end-to-end trial [Kasenna, 26
June 02]
Sigma Makes Standard MPEG-4
Video CODEC Available [SigmaDesigns, 26 June 02]
Mentergy Releases TrainNet
5.0, an Open, Broadband Distance Learning Platform [Mentergy, 26 June 02]
Wellspring Media and DivXNetworks Partner For Online Video-on-Demand Service
[DivXNetworks, 25 June 02]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Handy [ mailto:jeffh@bisk.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2023 18:58
> To: discuss@lists.m4if.org
> Subject: [M4IF Discuss] WEMP
>
>
> Can anyone fill us in on late announcements or any impressive details
> from the show?
>
>
> Jeff Handy - Sr. Digital Media Specialist
> Bisk Education - Technology Development
> World Headquarters - Tampa, FL
> 800-874-7877 x360
> jeffh@bisk.com
> http://www.bisk.com
>
> Cleaner Forum COWmunity Leader
>
http://www.creativecow.net/cgi-bin/select_forum.cgi?forum=cleaner
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.m4if.org
>
http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020702/5b5b55a7/attachment.html
From rkoenen intertrust.com Mon Jul 15 15:44:24 2002
From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen)
Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:31 2003
Subject: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Licensing Announced!!
Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF5D0F@exchange.epr.com>
This message that I just received from MPEG LA is
important enough to forward straight to the list.
The long-awaited MPEG-4 Visual licensing terms are here!
Not only are they for MPEG-4 Visual Simple and Core, but also
for other profiles (although unclear to me which at this point)
Also this announcement covers MPEG-4 Systems!
As well, the release seems to imply that the license would
apply to H.263 baseline.
There seem to be some major changes, but I am still studying.
Give me an hour or so.
Best,
Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: Michelle Peters [mailto:MPeters@mpegla.com]
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2023 14:21
To: rob@intertrust.com
Cc: Larry Horn
Subject: MPEG-4 Press Release
Rob,
Attached please find a PDF file of a press release that we have just sent to
Business Wire. Larry wanted to make sure that you have a copy.
Thanks,
Michelle
<>
Michelle Peters
Assistant to the VP, Licensing
MPEG LA, LLC
35 Wisconsin Circle, Suite 520
Chevy Chase, MD 20815
tel. 301-986-6660
fax 301-986-8575
mpeters@mpegla.com
www.mpegla.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: M4PressRls 15July02.pdf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 140914 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020715/198967b2/M4PressRls15July02.exe
From mikael sevenier.com Mon Jul 15 17:02:31 2002
From: mikael sevenier.com (Mikael Bourges-Sevenier)
Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:31 2003
Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Licensing Announced!!
In-Reply-To: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF5D0F@exchange.epr.com>
Message-ID: <009b01c22c53$b4acdad0$0301a8c0@bilbo>
Thanks Rob for forwarding these long-awaited terms!
However, what happens to companies that provide a freely downloadable
player?
If I read correctly, they are subject to the $1M/y cap for video and
$100k/y for Systems, am I correct?
Thanks,
Mike
> -----Original Message-----
> From: news-admin@lists.m4if.org
> [mailto:news-admin@lists.m4if.org] On Behalf Of Rob Koenen
> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2023 2:44 PM
> To: M4IF news (E-mail); M4IF Discussion List (E-mail)
> Subject: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Licensing Announced!!
> Importance: High
>
>
> This message that I just received from MPEG LA is
> important enough to forward straight to the list.
>
> The long-awaited MPEG-4 Visual licensing terms are here!
>
> Not only are they for MPEG-4 Visual Simple and Core, but also
> for other profiles (although unclear to me which at this point)
>
> Also this announcement covers MPEG-4 Systems!
>
> As well, the release seems to imply that the license would
> apply to H.263 baseline.
>
> There seem to be some major changes, but I am still studying.
> Give me an hour or so.
>
> Best,
> Rob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michelle Peters [mailto:MPeters@mpegla.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2023 14:21
> To: rob@intertrust.com
> Cc: Larry Horn
> Subject: MPEG-4 Press Release
>
>
> Rob,
>
> Attached please find a PDF file of a press release that we
> have just sent to Business Wire. Larry wanted to make sure
> that you have a copy.
>
> Thanks,
> Michelle
>
> <>
>
> Michelle Peters
> Assistant to the VP, Licensing
> MPEG LA, LLC
> 35 Wisconsin Circle, Suite 520
> Chevy Chase, MD 20815
> tel. 301-986-6660
> fax 301-986-8575
> mpeters@mpegla.com
> www.mpegla.com
>
>
>
From rkoenen intertrust.com Mon Jul 15 17:07:23 2002
From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen)
Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:31 2003
Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Licensing Announced!!
Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF5D1F@exchange.epr.com>
Good to see the discussion start.
Let's take it to the discuss list from the next mail on.
Let's also note that I am not the originator of this news, only the
passer-on.
> However, what happens to companies that provide a freely downloadable
> player?
> If I read correctly, they are subject to the $1M/y cap for video and
> $100k/y for Systems, am I correct?
Sounds like it. If you are not in the video surveillance business, you
may want to add Audio to your system (and you may even like audio
if you *are* in the surveillance business).
These companies also seem entitled to distribute the first 50,000 systems
for free. But given the fact that you only mention the caps and not the
per en/de-coder royalties, you must be thinking Big.
Rob
From mikael sevenier.com Mon Jul 15 17:42:36 2002
From: mikael sevenier.com (Mikael Bourges-Sevenier)
Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:31 2003
Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Licensing Announced!!
In-Reply-To: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF5D1F@exchange.epr.com>
Message-ID: <009e01c22c59$4e76df80$0301a8c0@bilbo>
> > However, what happens to companies that provide a freely
> downloadable
> > player? If I read correctly, they are subject to the $1M/y cap for
> > video and $100k/y for Systems, am I correct?
>
> Sounds like it. If you are not in the video surveillance
> business, you
> may want to add Audio to your system (and you may even like audio
> if you *are* in the surveillance business).
>
> These companies also seem entitled to distribute the first
> 50,000 systems for free. But given the fact that you only
> mention the caps and not the per en/de-coder royalties, you
> must be thinking Big.
These days, an internet player with 'cool' contents can easily reach
50000 installs/year even though many of them are often installed for few
days and removed. Then the million dollar question: is there a 30-day
money back guarantee? Just kidding ;-)
Mike
From sm dicas.de Tue Jul 16 08:22:08 2002
From: sm dicas.de (Moeritz, Sebastian)
Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:31 2003
Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Licensing Announced!!
References: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF5D1F@exchange.epr.com>
Message-ID: <00df01c22c91$1e676d90$3a0607d5@London>
This news is excellent for the whole MPEG-4 community -- plus, of course,
the news from Apple. Although it took some time, we now do have a licensing
scheme one can work with. To the day, four months ago, I posted this to the
list ....
"Let's face it -- the licensing issues will be resolved and a mutually
acceptable solution will be found, because it is the interest and desire of
all concerned. Period."
Let's look forward to seeing MPEG-4 successfully used in a much broader way
than today and further deployed in a variety of exciting products and
services.
Kind regards.
Sebastian Moeritz
CEO, dicas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Koenen"
To: "'Mikael Bourges-Sevenier'" ; "Rob Koenen"
; "'M4IF news (E-mail)'" ;
"'M4IF Discussion List (E-mail)'"
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2023 12:07 AM
Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Licensing
Announced!!
> Good to see the discussion start.
>
> Let's take it to the discuss list from the next mail on.
>
> Let's also note that I am not the originator of this news, only the
> passer-on.
>
> > However, what happens to companies that provide a freely downloadable
> > player?
> > If I read correctly, they are subject to the $1M/y cap for video and
> > $100k/y for Systems, am I correct?
>
> Sounds like it. If you are not in the video surveillance business, you
> may want to add Audio to your system (and you may even like audio
> if you *are* in the surveillance business).
>
> These companies also seem entitled to distribute the first 50,000 systems
> for free. But given the fact that you only mention the caps and not the
> per en/de-coder royalties, you must be thinking Big.
>
> Rob
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.m4if.org
> http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
From jeffh bisk.com Tue Jul 16 10:12:19 2002
From: jeffh bisk.com (Jeff Handy)
Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:31 2003
Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Licensing Announced!!
Message-ID: <7766C1C51719A44B92C2461F6F0C5A093767B7@mail.corp.bisk.com>
It's the moment we've all been waiting for! I'm pretty excited. Now,
let's see some cool new MPEG-4 tools!
Jeff Handy - Sr. Digital Media Specialist
Bisk Education - Technology Development
World Headquarters - Tampa, FL
800-874-7877 x360
jeffh@bisk.com
http://www.bisk.com
Cleaner Forum COWmunity Leader
http://www.creativecow.net/cgi-bin/select_forum.cgi?forum=cleaner
From wjf NetworkXXIII.com Wed Jul 17 11:00:56 2002
From: wjf NetworkXXIII.com (William J. Fulco)
Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:31 2003
Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Licensing Announced!!
In-Reply-To: <009e01c22c59$4e76df80$0301a8c0@bilbo>
Message-ID:
This license's terms are much better...
Clearly people like Apple and Real and such can just drop the $1M (well,
maybe "drop" is too flip a word - sorry Dave :-) and pay-off the license for
the year and then give away millions and millions of encoders/decoders...
for the little garage-shop codec-implementation house, well - this term
could be problematic... you're right about the "use for 3 days and then
discard", I've got a dozen codecs like that on my system easily.... This is
going to be a tough one. I guess you could make your MPEG-4 codec expire - I
wonder how that is going to play to the licensing guys? Is it "downloads" of
MPEG-4 codecs or is it "being used" codecs - I suspect it is the former...
Here's a question I had...
A line in the press release:
"Current cable television, direct satellite television and over-the-air
broadcast that one day may allow a broadcaster to address its broadcast to a
specific viewer or subscriber will pay a royalty of $0.25 for the right to
manufacture and sell each decoder and encoder and the party providing
content service to the subscriber will pay a royalty of $1.25 for the
paid-up right to use a decoder to decode and use encoded MPEG-4 Visual
information."
OK - so let me get this straight...
If say, SA, Mot or TiVo build an MPEG-4 set-top box they pay $0.25 - OK,
fine. However if the user subscribes to a 200-channel package on DirecTV or
Digital cable does this mean that every one of those channel
content-providers must pay $1.25 for a paid-up license to distribute to that
box? So on a "basic package" - someone (who is likely?) must pay $250 to
MPEG-LA per sub - if DirecTV has 20M subs by that time (and they'vet gone
MPEG-4), does that mean they (or somebody) owes MPEG-LA $2.5Billion?
There is that implication about "addressable decoder" - so does that mean
that only the premium-channels like HBO will have to pay for each sub in a
system? If I have a premium-super-pack with dozens and dozens of
movie-channels do I/we/they have to pay (1.25 x (dozens and dozens)) dollars
for this package?
Maybe this better than $0.02/hour content fee - but I'm not so sure it will
make CE MPEG-4 work for sat and cable systems. These particular economics
would seem to favor delivery of TV programming to such set-top devices via
broadband/web-site (Jordan will be happy) and not previous
delivery-infrastructure.
But I digress...
++Bill
wjf@NetworkXXIII.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org
> [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Mikael
> Bourges-Sevenier
> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2023 4:43 PM
> To: 'Rob Koenen'; 'M4IF news (E-mail)'; 'M4IF Discussion List (E-mail)'
> Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems
> Licensing Announced!!
>
>
> > > However, what happens to companies that provide a freely
> > downloadable
> > > player? If I read correctly, they are subject to the $1M/y cap for
> > > video and $100k/y for Systems, am I correct?
> >
> > Sounds like it. If you are not in the video surveillance
> > business, you
> > may want to add Audio to your system (and you may even like audio
> > if you *are* in the surveillance business).
> >
> > These companies also seem entitled to distribute the first
> > 50,000 systems for free. But given the fact that you only
> > mention the caps and not the per en/de-coder royalties, you
> > must be thinking Big.
>
> These days, an internet player with 'cool' contents can easily reach
> 50000 installs/year even though many of them are often installed for few
> days and removed. Then the million dollar question: is there a 30-day
> money back guarantee? Just kidding ;-)
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.m4if.org
> http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
From fevzi tivo.com Wed Jul 17 12:23:27 2002
From: fevzi tivo.com (Fevzi Karavelioglu)
Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:32 2003
Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Licensing
Announced!!
References:
Message-ID: <3D35B61F.42FA5BB5@tivo.com>
>OK - so let me get this straight...
>
>If say, SA, Mot or TiVo build an MPEG-4 set-top box they pay $0.25 - OK,
>fine. However if the user subscribes to a 200-channel package on DirecTV or
>Digital cable does this mean that every one of those channel
>content-providers must pay $1.25 for a paid-up license to distribute to that
>box? So on a "basic package" - someone (who is likely?) must pay $250 to
>MPEG-LA per sub - if DirecTV has 20M subs by that time (and they'vet gone
>MPEG-4), does that mean they (or somebody) owes MPEG-LA $2.5Billion?
Good question. The channel line ups change, and channels are added and removed
all the time. How would you monitor/manage this?
In the case of TiVo it is likely each TiVo box built will cost extra 50 cents
since it may employ both a decoder and an encoder.
If it is true that billions of dollars would have to paid due to $1.25 per
channel then the MSOs cannot afford to adapt MPEG4.
Fevzi.
"William J. Fulco" wrote:
> This license's terms are much better...
>
> Clearly people like Apple and Real and such can just drop the $1M (well,
> maybe "drop" is too flip a word - sorry Dave :-) and pay-off the license for
> the year and then give away millions and millions of encoders/decoders...
> for the little garage-shop codec-implementation house, well - this term
> could be problematic... you're right about the "use for 3 days and then
> discard", I've got a dozen codecs like that on my system easily.... This is
> going to be a tough one. I guess you could make your MPEG-4 codec expire - I
> wonder how that is going to play to the licensing guys? Is it "downloads" of
> MPEG-4 codecs or is it "being used" codecs - I suspect it is the former...
>
> Here's a question I had...
>
> A line in the press release:
>
> "Current cable television, direct satellite television and over-the-air
> broadcast that one day may allow a broadcaster to address its broadcast to a
> specific viewer or subscriber will pay a royalty of $0.25 for the right to
> manufacture and sell each decoder and encoder and the party providing
> content service to the subscriber will pay a royalty of $1.25 for the
> paid-up right to use a decoder to decode and use encoded MPEG-4 Visual
> information."
>
> OK - so let me get this straight...
>
> If say, SA, Mot or TiVo build an MPEG-4 set-top box they pay $0.25 - OK,
> fine. However if the user subscribes to a 200-channel package on DirecTV or
> Digital cable does this mean that every one of those channel
> content-providers must pay $1.25 for a paid-up license to distribute to that
> box? So on a "basic package" - someone (who is likely?) must pay $250 to
> MPEG-LA per sub - if DirecTV has 20M subs by that time (and they'vet gone
> MPEG-4), does that mean they (or somebody) owes MPEG-LA $2.5Billion?
>
> There is that implication about "addressable decoder" - so does that mean
> that only the premium-channels like HBO will have to pay for each sub in a
> system? If I have a premium-super-pack with dozens and dozens of
> movie-channels do I/we/they have to pay (1.25 x (dozens and dozens)) dollars
> for this package?
>
> Maybe this better than $0.02/hour content fee - but I'm not so sure it will
> make CE MPEG-4 work for sat and cable systems. These particular economics
> would seem to favor delivery of TV programming to such set-top devices via
> broadband/web-site (Jordan will be happy) and not previous
> delivery-infrastructure.
>
> But I digress...
>
> ++Bill
> wjf@NetworkXXIII.com
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org
> > [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Mikael
> > Bourges-Sevenier
> > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2023 4:43 PM
> > To: 'Rob Koenen'; 'M4IF news (E-mail)'; 'M4IF Discussion List (E-mail)'
> > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems
> > Licensing Announced!!
> >
> >
> > > > However, what happens to companies that provide a freely
> > > downloadable
> > > > player? If I read correctly, they are subject to the $1M/y cap for
> > > > video and $100k/y for Systems, am I correct?
> > >
> > > Sounds like it. If you are not in the video surveillance
> > > business, you
> > > may want to add Audio to your system (and you may even like audio
> > > if you *are* in the surveillance business).
> > >
> > > These companies also seem entitled to distribute the first
> > > 50,000 systems for free. But given the fact that you only
> > > mention the caps and not the per en/de-coder royalties, you
> > > must be thinking Big.
> >
> > These days, an internet player with 'cool' contents can easily reach
> > 50000 installs/year even though many of them are often installed for few
> > days and removed. Then the million dollar question: is there a 30-day
> > money back guarantee? Just kidding ;-)
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss@lists.m4if.org
> > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.m4if.org
> http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
From MTayer aerocast.com Wed Jul 17 12:58:54 2002
From: MTayer aerocast.com (Marc Tayer)
Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:32 2003
Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Lice
nsing Announced!!
Message-ID:
While clarifications will be required on this and other issues, my
interpretation is that the answer to the question posed below is "no."
There was a key parenthetical omitted from the question:
"the party having the unique relationship of providing content service to
the subscriber (e.g., cable television system or direct satellite provider)
will pay a royalty of $1.25 for the paid-up right..."
My interpretation of this language is that the PACKAGER/AGGREGATOR of the
content (e.g., DirecTV for DBS or Cox for cable) would pay the $1.25 per
subscriber paid-up license. So, for a DBS operator with 10 million
subscribers, each having MPEG-4 decode capability, the DBS operator would
pay a $12.5 million one time fee, IRRESPECTIVE of how many individual
content providers are part of the package(s) offered to the subscriber(s).
Assuming this interpretation is correct, what about "churn?" In other words,
if a system operator has 10 million digital subscribers at a point in time,
a year later perhaps 2 million or even 5 million of these specific
subscribers will have disconnected. Does the system operator get to use this
paid up license fee for a new subscriber, i.e., is it based on "net"
(non-specific) subscribers? Or is it based on "gross" (and specific)
subscribers?
-----Original Message-----
From: Fevzi Karavelioglu [mailto:fevzi@tivo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2023 11:23 AM
To: William J. Fulco
Cc: Mikael Bourges-Sevenier; 'Rob Koenen'; 'M4IF news (E-mail)'; 'M4IF
Discussion List (E-mail)'
Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems
Licensing Announced!!
>OK - so let me get this straight...
>
>If say, SA, Mot or TiVo build an MPEG-4 set-top box they pay $0.25 - OK,
>fine. However if the user subscribes to a 200-channel package on DirecTV or
>Digital cable does this mean that every one of those channel
>content-providers must pay $1.25 for a paid-up license to distribute to
that
>box? So on a "basic package" - someone (who is likely?) must pay $250 to
>MPEG-LA per sub - if DirecTV has 20M subs by that time (and they'vet gone
>MPEG-4), does that mean they (or somebody) owes MPEG-LA $2.5Billion?
Good question. The channel line ups change, and channels are added and
removed
all the time. How would you monitor/manage this?
In the case of TiVo it is likely each TiVo box built will cost extra 50
cents
since it may employ both a decoder and an encoder.
If it is true that billions of dollars would have to paid due to $1.25 per
channel then the MSOs cannot afford to adapt MPEG4.
Fevzi.
"William J. Fulco" wrote:
> This license's terms are much better...
>
> Clearly people like Apple and Real and such can just drop the $1M (well,
> maybe "drop" is too flip a word - sorry Dave :-) and pay-off the license
for
> the year and then give away millions and millions of encoders/decoders...
> for the little garage-shop codec-implementation house, well - this term
> could be problematic... you're right about the "use for 3 days and then
> discard", I've got a dozen codecs like that on my system easily.... This
is
> going to be a tough one. I guess you could make your MPEG-4 codec expire -
I
> wonder how that is going to play to the licensing guys? Is it "downloads"
of
> MPEG-4 codecs or is it "being used" codecs - I suspect it is the former...
>
> Here's a question I had...
>
> A line in the press release:
>
> "Current cable television, direct satellite television and over-the-air
> broadcast that one day may allow a broadcaster to address its broadcast to
a
> specific viewer or subscriber will pay a royalty of $0.25 for the right to
> manufacture and sell each decoder and encoder and the party providing
> content service to the subscriber will pay a royalty of $1.25 for the
> paid-up right to use a decoder to decode and use encoded MPEG-4 Visual
> information."
>
> OK - so let me get this straight...
>
> If say, SA, Mot or TiVo build an MPEG-4 set-top box they pay $0.25 - OK,
> fine. However if the user subscribes to a 200-channel package on DirecTV
or
> Digital cable does this mean that every one of those channel
> content-providers must pay $1.25 for a paid-up license to distribute to
that
> box? So on a "basic package" - someone (who is likely?) must pay $250 to
> MPEG-LA per sub - if DirecTV has 20M subs by that time (and they'vet gone
> MPEG-4), does that mean they (or somebody) owes MPEG-LA $2.5Billion?
>
> There is that implication about "addressable decoder" - so does that mean
> that only the premium-channels like HBO will have to pay for each sub in a
> system? If I have a premium-super-pack with dozens and dozens of
> movie-channels do I/we/they have to pay (1.25 x (dozens and dozens))
dollars
> for this package?
>
> Maybe this better than $0.02/hour content fee - but I'm not so sure it
will
> make CE MPEG-4 work for sat and cable systems. These particular economics
> would seem to favor delivery of TV programming to such set-top devices via
> broadband/web-site (Jordan will be happy) and not previous
> delivery-infrastructure.
>
> But I digress...
>
> ++Bill
> wjf@NetworkXXIII.com
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org
> > [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Mikael
> > Bourges-Sevenier
> > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2023 4:43 PM
> > To: 'Rob Koenen'; 'M4IF news (E-mail)'; 'M4IF Discussion List (E-mail)'
> > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems
> > Licensing Announced!!
> >
> >
> > > > However, what happens to companies that provide a freely
> > > downloadable
> > > > player? If I read correctly, they are subject to the $1M/y cap for
> > > > video and $100k/y for Systems, am I correct?
> > >
> > > Sounds like it. If you are not in the video surveillance
> > > business, you
> > > may want to add Audio to your system (and you may even like audio
> > > if you *are* in the surveillance business).
> > >
> > > These companies also seem entitled to distribute the first
> > > 50,000 systems for free. But given the fact that you only
> > > mention the caps and not the per en/de-coder royalties, you
> > > must be thinking Big.
> >
> > These days, an internet player with 'cool' contents can easily reach
> > 50000 installs/year even though many of them are often installed for few
> > days and removed. Then the million dollar question: is there a 30-day
> > money back guarantee? Just kidding ;-)
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss@lists.m4if.org
> > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.m4if.org
> http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.m4if.org
http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
From rkoenen intertrust.com Wed Jul 17 12:57:38 2002
From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen)
Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:32 2003
Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Lice
nsing Announced!!
Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59011B3352@exchange.epr.com>
Good questions indeed. From what I have seen encoder and decoder together
*may* still be 25 cts per box (this is under point 2. in the license, but
I do not understand very well where a PVR would be categorized) although
the cap is allways twice the 1 M$ (which you would hit at 4 million boxes).
I can't imagine that there is a 1.25 per channel fee, that would be
end-of-game, but it cannot hurt having that formally confirmed from the
lion's mouth.
Neither can I imagine end-users being on the line for paying a use fee when
they use PVRs, if only because royalties can be considered to have been
paid elsewhere in the chain - but confirmation if this view would again
be a good thing.
It is an intersting case anyway what happens if the same set top box is used
to access services for multiple service providers - a stated goal for
MPEG-21.
The license seems to only reckon with the (currently dominant) model in
which
there is a one-to-one relation btween set top and service provider.
Keep the questions coming. MPEG LA, if I might suggest, could benefit from
having a FAQ.
Rob
ps: please refrain from cross-posting to the News list, it will make sure we
don't get multiple copies of the same discussion, and the News list was
set-up
for a different purpose than these discussions. Thanks for your
consideration.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fevzi Karavelioglu [mailto:fevzi@tivo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2023 11:23
> To: William J. Fulco
> Cc: Mikael Bourges-Sevenier; 'Rob Koenen'; 'M4IF news (E-mail)'; 'M4IF
> Discussion List (E-mail)'
> Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems
> Licensing Announced!!
>
>
> >OK - so let me get this straight...
> >
> >If say, SA, Mot or TiVo build an MPEG-4 set-top box they pay
> $0.25 - OK,
> >fine. However if the user subscribes to a 200-channel
> package on DirecTV or
> >Digital cable does this mean that every one of those channel
> >content-providers must pay $1.25 for a paid-up license to
> distribute to that
> >box? So on a "basic package" - someone (who is likely?) must
> pay $250 to
> >MPEG-LA per sub - if DirecTV has 20M subs by that time (and
> they'vet gone
> >MPEG-4), does that mean they (or somebody) owes MPEG-LA $2.5Billion?
>
> Good question. The channel line ups change, and channels are
> added and removed
> all the time. How would you monitor/manage this?
>
> In the case of TiVo it is likely each TiVo box built will
> cost extra 50 cents
> since it may employ both a decoder and an encoder.
>
> If it is true that billions of dollars would have to paid due
> to $1.25 per
> channel then the MSOs cannot afford to adapt MPEG4.
>
> Fevzi.
>
> "William J. Fulco" wrote:
>
> > This license's terms are much better...
> >
> > Clearly people like Apple and Real and such can just drop
> the $1M (well,
> > maybe "drop" is too flip a word - sorry Dave :-) and
> pay-off the license for
> > the year and then give away millions and millions of
> encoders/decoders...
> > for the little garage-shop codec-implementation house, well
> - this term
> > could be problematic... you're right about the "use for 3
> days and then
> > discard", I've got a dozen codecs like that on my system
> easily.... This is
> > going to be a tough one. I guess you could make your MPEG-4
> codec expire - I
> > wonder how that is going to play to the licensing guys? Is
> it "downloads" of
> > MPEG-4 codecs or is it "being used" codecs - I suspect it
> is the former...
> >
> > Here's a question I had...
> >
> > A line in the press release:
> >
> > "Current cable television, direct satellite television and
> over-the-air
> > broadcast that one day may allow a broadcaster to address
> its broadcast to a
> > specific viewer or subscriber will pay a royalty of $0.25
> for the right to
> > manufacture and sell each decoder and encoder and the party
> providing
> > content service to the subscriber will pay a royalty of
> $1.25 for the
> > paid-up right to use a decoder to decode and use encoded
> MPEG-4 Visual
> > information."
> >
> > OK - so let me get this straight...
> >
> > If say, SA, Mot or TiVo build an MPEG-4 set-top box they
> pay $0.25 - OK,
> > fine. However if the user subscribes to a 200-channel
> package on DirecTV or
> > Digital cable does this mean that every one of those channel
> > content-providers must pay $1.25 for a paid-up license to
> distribute to that
> > box? So on a "basic package" - someone (who is likely?)
> must pay $250 to
> > MPEG-LA per sub - if DirecTV has 20M subs by that time (and
> they'vet gone
> > MPEG-4), does that mean they (or somebody) owes MPEG-LA $2.5Billion?
> >
> > There is that implication about "addressable decoder" - so
> does that mean
> > that only the premium-channels like HBO will have to pay
> for each sub in a
> > system? If I have a premium-super-pack with dozens and dozens of
> > movie-channels do I/we/they have to pay (1.25 x (dozens and
> dozens)) dollars
> > for this package?
> >
> > Maybe this better than $0.02/hour content fee - but I'm not
> so sure it will
> > make CE MPEG-4 work for sat and cable systems. These
> particular economics
> > would seem to favor delivery of TV programming to such
> set-top devices via
> > broadband/web-site (Jordan will be happy) and not previous
> > delivery-infrastructure.
> >
> > But I digress...
> >
> > ++Bill
> > wjf@NetworkXXIII.com
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org
> > > [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Mikael
> > > Bourges-Sevenier
> > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2023 4:43 PM
> > > To: 'Rob Koenen'; 'M4IF news (E-mail)'; 'M4IF Discussion
> List (E-mail)'
> > > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems
> > > Licensing Announced!!
> > >
> > >
> > > > > However, what happens to companies that provide a freely
> > > > downloadable
> > > > > player? If I read correctly, they are subject to the
> $1M/y cap for
> > > > > video and $100k/y for Systems, am I correct?
> > > >
> > > > Sounds like it. If you are not in the video surveillance
> > > > business, you
> > > > may want to add Audio to your system (and you may even
> like audio
> > > > if you *are* in the surveillance business).
> > > >
> > > > These companies also seem entitled to distribute the first
> > > > 50,000 systems for free. But given the fact that you only
> > > > mention the caps and not the per en/de-coder royalties, you
> > > > must be thinking Big.
> > >
> > > These days, an internet player with 'cool' contents can
> easily reach
> > > 50000 installs/year even though many of them are often
> installed for few
> > > days and removed. Then the million dollar question: is
> there a 30-day
> > > money back guarantee? Just kidding ;-)
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Discuss mailing list
> > > Discuss@lists.m4if.org
> > > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss@lists.m4if.org
> > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
From wjf NetworkXXIII.com Wed Jul 17 13:17:04 2002
From: wjf NetworkXXIII.com (William J. Fulco)
Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:32 2003
Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Licensing Announced!!
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
Marc,
That is a much more reasonable interpretation of how it "should" work. In
addition to the churn issue, there is an issue of what exactly is "a content
package" - I have for instance 4 or 5 "packages" on my DirecTV - basic,
HBO/Sho, Sports etc etc.. if there is just a right to distribute anyone's
content to a single decoder the answer is simple and reasonable however, by
that token, shouldn't then each web-site have to pay a $1.25 fee to MPEG-LA
for the right to send content to a subscriber (vs. the $0.25/sub over 50K
subs, cap at $1M that the license says?)... If I were TW/AOL, I'd cost less
to deliver via broadband vs. Sat/Cable)
In a converged world - where I have a broadband-connected TiVo and my
programming can arrive over the Sat, cable or via the modem - the economics
of distribution for the producers of content is going to get very
complicated.
++Bill
William J. Fulco
wjf@NetworkXXIII.com
310-927-4263 Cell
---------------------------------
Logic: When you absolutely, positively
have to refute every fallacy in the room.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Tayer [mailto:MTayer@aerocast.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2023 11:59 AM
> To: 'Fevzi Karavelioglu'; William J. Fulco
> Cc: Mikael Bourges-Sevenier; 'Rob Koenen'; 'M4IF news (E-mail)'; 'M4IF
> Discussion List (E-mail)'
> Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems
> Licensing Announced!!
>
>
> While clarifications will be required on this and other issues, my
> interpretation is that the answer to the question posed below is "no."
>
> There was a key parenthetical omitted from the question:
> "the party having the unique relationship of providing content service to
> the subscriber (e.g., cable television system or direct satellite
> provider)
> will pay a royalty of $1.25 for the paid-up right..."
>
> My interpretation of this language is that the PACKAGER/AGGREGATOR of the
> content (e.g., DirecTV for DBS or Cox for cable) would pay the $1.25 per
> subscriber paid-up license. So, for a DBS operator with 10 million
> subscribers, each having MPEG-4 decode capability, the DBS operator would
> pay a $12.5 million one time fee, IRRESPECTIVE of how many individual
> content providers are part of the package(s) offered to the subscriber(s).
>
> Assuming this interpretation is correct, what about "churn?" In
> other words,
> if a system operator has 10 million digital subscribers at a
> point in time,
> a year later perhaps 2 million or even 5 million of these specific
> subscribers will have disconnected. Does the system operator get
> to use this
> paid up license fee for a new subscriber, i.e., is it based on "net"
> (non-specific) subscribers? Or is it based on "gross" (and specific)
> subscribers?
From jgreenhall divxnetworks.com Wed Jul 17 13:30:06 2002
From: jgreenhall divxnetworks.com (Jordan Greenhall)
Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:32 2003
Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Licensing Announced!!
Message-ID: <92800BEF04DB704192951C1A407CD91D46DA05@mrsmith.divxnetworks.com>
The way I read it, the MSO would pay $1.25 for each sub, regardless of
the number of channels. So this would be $24M - which is still nothing
like chicken-feed, but is certainly better than $2.5B.
What gets a bit more problematic is Internet video - where each
"channel" like HBO, ESPN, etc., could have their own dedicated sub. The
MPEG-4 license would not be aggregated across multiple channels as per
the above - but would be charged on a "per channel" basis - which could
lead to billions of dollars of fees shared by the 200 channels.
J
-----Original Message-----
From: Fevzi Karavelioglu [mailto:fevzi@tivo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2023 11:23 AM
To: William J. Fulco
Cc: Mikael Bourges-Sevenier; 'Rob Koenen'; 'M4IF news (E-mail)'; 'M4IF
Discussion List (E-mail)'
Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems
Licensing Announced!!
>OK - so let me get this straight...
>
>If say, SA, Mot or TiVo build an MPEG-4 set-top box they pay $0.25 -
>OK, fine. However if the user subscribes to a 200-channel package on
>DirecTV or Digital cable does this mean that every one of those channel
>content-providers must pay $1.25 for a paid-up license to distribute to
>that box? So on a "basic package" - someone (who is likely?) must pay
>$250 to MPEG-LA per sub - if DirecTV has 20M subs by that time (and
>they'vet gone MPEG-4), does that mean they (or somebody) owes MPEG-LA
>$2.5Billion?
Good question. The channel line ups change, and channels are added and
removed all the time. How would you monitor/manage this?
In the case of TiVo it is likely each TiVo box built will cost extra 50
cents since it may employ both a decoder and an encoder.
If it is true that billions of dollars would have to paid due to $1.25
per channel then the MSOs cannot afford to adapt MPEG4.
Fevzi.
"William J. Fulco" wrote:
> This license's terms are much better...
>
> Clearly people like Apple and Real and such can just drop the $1M
> (well, maybe "drop" is too flip a word - sorry Dave :-) and pay-off
> the license for the year and then give away millions and millions of
> encoders/decoders... for the little garage-shop codec-implementation
> house, well - this term could be problematic... you're right about the
> "use for 3 days and then discard", I've got a dozen codecs like that
> on my system easily.... This is going to be a tough one. I guess you
> could make your MPEG-4 codec expire - I wonder how that is going to
> play to the licensing guys? Is it "downloads" of MPEG-4 codecs or is
> it "being used" codecs - I suspect it is the former...
>
> Here's a question I had...
>
> A line in the press release:
>
> "Current cable television, direct satellite television and
> over-the-air broadcast that one day may allow a broadcaster to address
> its broadcast to a specific viewer or subscriber will pay a royalty of
> $0.25 for the right to manufacture and sell each decoder and encoder
> and the party providing content service to the subscriber will pay a
> royalty of $1.25 for the paid-up right to use a decoder to decode and
> use encoded MPEG-4 Visual information."
>
> OK - so let me get this straight...
>
> If say, SA, Mot or TiVo build an MPEG-4 set-top box they pay $0.25 -
> OK, fine. However if the user subscribes to a 200-channel package on
> DirecTV or Digital cable does this mean that every one of those
> channel content-providers must pay $1.25 for a paid-up license to
> distribute to that box? So on a "basic package" - someone (who is
> likely?) must pay $250 to MPEG-LA per sub - if DirecTV has 20M subs by
> that time (and they'vet gone MPEG-4), does that mean they (or
> somebody) owes MPEG-LA $2.5Billion?
>
> There is that implication about "addressable decoder" - so does that
> mean that only the premium-channels like HBO will have to pay for each
> sub in a system? If I have a premium-super-pack with dozens and dozens
> of movie-channels do I/we/they have to pay (1.25 x (dozens and
> dozens)) dollars for this package?
>
> Maybe this better than $0.02/hour content fee - but I'm not so sure it
> will make CE MPEG-4 work for sat and cable systems. These particular
> economics would seem to favor delivery of TV programming to such
> set-top devices via broadband/web-site (Jordan will be happy) and not
> previous delivery-infrastructure.
>
> But I digress...
>
> ++Bill
> wjf@NetworkXXIII.com
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org
> > [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Mikael
> > Bourges-Sevenier
> > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2023 4:43 PM
> > To: 'Rob Koenen'; 'M4IF news (E-mail)'; 'M4IF Discussion List
> > (E-mail)'
> > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems
> > Licensing Announced!!
> >
> >
> > > > However, what happens to companies that provide a freely
> > > downloadable
> > > > player? If I read correctly, they are subject to the $1M/y cap
> > > > for video and $100k/y for Systems, am I correct?
> > >
> > > Sounds like it. If you are not in the video surveillance business,
> > > you may want to add Audio to your system (and you may even like
> > > audio if you *are* in the surveillance business).
> > >
> > > These companies also seem entitled to distribute the first 50,000
> > > systems for free. But given the fact that you only mention the
> > > caps and not the per en/de-coder royalties, you must be thinking
> > > Big.
> >
> > These days, an internet player with 'cool' contents can easily reach
> > 50000 installs/year even though many of them are often installed for
> > few days and removed. Then the million dollar question: is there a
> > 30-day money back guarantee? Just kidding ;-)
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss@lists.m4if.org
> > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
From rkoenen intertrust.com Wed Jul 17 14:52:26 2002
From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen)
Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:32 2003
Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Lice
nsing Announced!!
Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59011B335D@exchange.epr.com>
> In a converged world - where I have a broadband-connected TiVo and my
> programming can arrive over the Sat, cable or via the modem - the
economics
> of distribution for the producers of content is going to get very
> complicated.
Right. That's why I have called this version 1 of the license.
As time evolves, refinements and clarifications will be required,
and we will need V.2.
I am glad we now have v.1 out there. WIth MPEG-4 being free for 1.5 years
(at least for people who sign up this year) there is some leeway.
Rob
From fevzi tivo.com Wed Jul 17 18:14:01 2002
From: fevzi tivo.com (Fevzi Karavelioglu)
Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:32 2003
Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Licensing
Announced!!
References: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59011B3352@exchange.epr.com>
Message-ID: <3D360849.BB46259F@tivo.com>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020717/f2b1a0fd/attachment.html
From jgreenhall divxnetworks.com Wed Jul 17 18:28:22 2002
From: jgreenhall divxnetworks.com (Jordan Greenhall)
Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:33 2003
Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Licensing Announced!!
Message-ID: <92800BEF04DB704192951C1A407CD91D1A59D8@mrsmith.divxnetworks.com>
I'll place some bets:
1. The cost is $0.50 for encoder and decoder, but the fee goes to the
chip manufacturer, passed through to the box.
2. There will be *no* distribution / subs fee charged to the PVR at all.
This will either be from the broadcaster or the MSO
3. The $1.25 is aggregate per sub, not per channel in an
MSO/Satellite/Broadcast model
Tivo makes out well. Total fees are $0.50 for PVR down from $2.50 for
MPEG-2. So you save money out the door and that is before the savings
for smaller storage needs.
J
-----Original Message-----
From: Fevzi Karavelioglu [mailto:fevzi@tivo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2023 5:14 PM
To: Rob Koenen
Cc: 'M4IF Discussion List (E-mail)'; Larry Horn (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and
Systems Licensing Announced!!
>From what I have seen encoder and decoder together
>*may* still be 25 cts per box (this is under point 2. in the
license, but
>I do not understand very well where a PVR would be categorized)
although
>the cap is allways twice the 1 M$ (which you would hit at 4
million boxes).
Hmm so it is not clear yet I guess.
I was reading an article on the CED daily, it states:
In the cable television, direct satellite
television and over-the-air
broadcast areas, manufacturers will pay 25
cents for the right to
manufacture and sell each decoder and
encoder. Content providers
will pay a royalty of $1.25 for the
paid-up right to use the decoder
and use encoded MPEG-4 visual information.
So that prompted me think that for some PVRs it may cost 50
cents. per box.
What do the manufacture refer to here? The box manufacturer or
the encoder/decoder chip
manufacturer? I guess both?
>I can't imagine that there is a 1.25 per channel fee, that
would be
>end-of-game, but it cannot hurt having that formally confirmed
from the
>lion's mouth.
Yes very true.
>Neither can I imagine end-users being on the line for paying a
use fee when
>they use PVRs, if only because royalties can be considered to
have been
>paid elsewhere in the chain - but confirmation if this view
would again
>be a good thing.
PVRs can record content and users can erase them without ever
watching them. What if a user only watches
the first 15 minutes then earses it from the disk? Should they
(or whoever) pay the full prize? So yes I agree it
would make more sense if the royalties are absorbed elsewhere as
opposed to the end user.
Fevzi.
Rob Koenen wrote:
Good questions indeed. From what I have seen encoder and
decoder together
*may* still be 25 cts per box (this is under point 2. in
the license, but
I do not understand very well where a PVR would be
categorized) although
the cap is allways twice the 1 M$ (which you would hit
at 4 million boxes).
I can't imagine that there is a 1.25 per channel fee,
that would be
end-of-game, but it cannot hurt having that formally
confirmed from the
lion's mouth.
Neither can I imagine end-users being on the line for
paying a use fee when
they use PVRs, if only because royalties can be
considered to have been
paid elsewhere in the chain - but confirmation if this
view would again
be a good thing.
It is an intersting case anyway what happens if the same
set top box is used
to access services for multiple service providers - a
stated goal for
MPEG-21.
The license seems to only reckon with the (currently
dominant) model in
which
there is a one-to-one relation btween set top and
service provider.
Keep the questions coming. MPEG LA, if I might suggest,
could benefit from
having a FAQ.
Rob
ps: please refrain from cross-posting to the News list,
it will make sure we
don't get multiple copies of the same discussion, and
the News list was
set-up
for a different purpose than these discussions. Thanks
for your
consideration.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fevzi Karavelioglu [mailto:fevzi@tivo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2023 11:23
> To: William J. Fulco
> Cc: Mikael Bourges-Sevenier; 'Rob Koenen'; 'M4IF news
(E-mail)'; 'M4IF
> Discussion List (E-mail)'
> Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4
Visual and Systems
> Licensing Announced!!
>
>
> >OK - so let me get this straight...
> >
> >If say, SA, Mot or TiVo build an MPEG-4 set-top box
they pay
> $0.25 - OK,
> >fine. However if the user subscribes to a 200-channel
> package on DirecTV or
> >Digital cable does this mean that every one of those
channel
> >content-providers must pay $1.25 for a paid-up
license to
> distribute to that
> >box? So on a "basic package" - someone (who is
likely?) must
> pay $250 to
> >MPEG-LA per sub - if DirecTV has 20M subs by that
time (and
> they'vet gone
> >MPEG-4), does that mean they (or somebody) owes
MPEG-LA $2.5Billion?
>
> Good question. The channel line ups change, and
channels are
> added and removed
> all the time. How would you monitor/manage this?
>
> In the case of TiVo it is likely each TiVo box built
will
> cost extra 50 cents
> since it may employ both a decoder and an encoder.
>
> If it is true that billions of dollars would have to
paid due
> to $1.25 per
> channel then the MSOs cannot afford to adapt MPEG4.
>
> Fevzi.
>
> "William J. Fulco" wrote:
>
> > This license's terms are much better...
> >
> > Clearly people like Apple and Real and such can just
drop
> the $1M (well,
> > maybe "drop" is too flip a word - sorry Dave :-) and
> pay-off the license for
> > the year and then give away millions and millions of
> encoders/decoders...
> > for the little garage-shop codec-implementation
house, well
> - this term
> > could be problematic... you're right about the "use
for 3
> days and then
> > discard", I've got a dozen codecs like that on my
system
> easily.... This is
> > going to be a tough one. I guess you could make your
MPEG-4
> codec expire - I
> > wonder how that is going to play to the licensing
guys? Is
> it "downloads" of
> > MPEG-4 codecs or is it "being used" codecs - I
suspect it
> is the former...
> >
> > Here's a question I had...
> >
> > A line in the press release:
> >
> > "Current cable television, direct satellite
television and
> over-the-air
> > broadcast that one day may allow a broadcaster to
address
> its broadcast to a
> > specific viewer or subscriber will pay a royalty of
$0.25
> for the right to
> > manufacture and sell each decoder and encoder and
the party
> providing
> > content service to the subscriber will pay a royalty
of
> $1.25 for the
> > paid-up right to use a decoder to decode and use
encoded
> MPEG-4 Visual
> > information."
> >
> > OK - so let me get this straight...
> >
> > If say, SA, Mot or TiVo build an MPEG-4 set-top box
they
> pay $0.25 - OK,
> > fine. However if the user subscribes to a
200-channel
> package on DirecTV or
> > Digital cable does this mean that every one of those
channel
> > content-providers must pay $1.25 for a paid-up
license to
> distribute to that
> > box? So on a "basic package" - someone (who is
likely?)
> must pay $250 to
> > MPEG-LA per sub - if DirecTV has 20M subs by that
time (and
> they'vet gone
> > MPEG-4), does that mean they (or somebody) owes
MPEG-LA $2.5Billion?
> >
> > There is that implication about "addressable
decoder" - so
> does that mean
> > that only the premium-channels like HBO will have to
pay
> for each sub in a
> > system? If I have a premium-super-pack with dozens
and dozens of
> > movie-channels do I/we/they have to pay (1.25 x
(dozens and
> dozens)) dollars
> > for this package?
> >
> > Maybe this better than $0.02/hour content fee - but
I'm not
> so sure it will
> > make CE MPEG-4 work for sat and cable systems. These
> particular economics
> > would seem to favor delivery of TV programming to
such
> set-top devices via
> > broadband/web-site (Jordan will be happy) and not
previous
> > delivery-infrastructure.
> >
> > But I digress...
> >
> > ++Bill
> > wjf@NetworkXXIII.com
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org
> > > [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of
Mikael
> > > Bourges-Sevenier
> > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2023 4:43 PM
> > > To: 'Rob Koenen'; 'M4IF news (E-mail)'; 'M4IF
Discussion
> List (E-mail)'
> > > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4
Visual and Systems
> > > Licensing Announced!!
> > >
> > >
> > > > > However, what happens to companies that
provide a freely
> > > > downloadable
> > > > > player? If I read correctly, they are subject
to the
> $1M/y cap for
> > > > > video and $100k/y for Systems, am I correct?
> > > >
> > > > Sounds like it. If you are not in the video
surveillance
> > > > business, you
> > > > may want to add Audio to your system (and you
may even
> like audio
> > > > if you *are* in the surveillance business).
> > > >
> > > > These companies also seem entitled to distribute
the first
> > > > 50,000 systems for free. But given the fact that
you only
> > > > mention the caps and not the per en/de-coder
royalties, you
> > > > must be thinking Big.
> > >
> > > These days, an internet player with 'cool'
contents can
> easily reach
> > > 50000 installs/year even though many of them are
often
> installed for few
> > > days and removed. Then the million dollar
question: is
> there a 30-day
> > > money back guarantee? Just kidding ;-)
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Discuss mailing list
> > > Discuss@lists.m4if.org
> > > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss@lists.m4if.org
> > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.m4if.org
http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing
list Discuss@lists.m4if.org
http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020717/17ee2cc6/attachment.html
From rob.koenen m4if.org Wed Jul 17 19:08:08 2002
From: rob.koenen m4if.org (Rob Koenen)
Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:33 2003
Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Licensing Announced!!
In-Reply-To: <3D360849.BB46259F@tivo.com>
Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59256497@exchange.epr.com>
Fevzi,
Let's all work from the source, so that we don't work on interpretations
form interpretations (although CED is very close to the source):
http://www.mpegla.com/news/n_02-07-15_m4v.html
I would like to note that collecting royalties from end-users was never the
intention as I understand it, and I cannot imagine that having changed.
Best,
rob
DISCLAIMER: I am interpreting the language from the release,
and even though I have discussed many MPEG-4 licensing issues whith
many people at many occasions, I may be wrong.
I am not a licensor, nor an agent for any of them. I represent my
members, an interesting collection of licensees, licensors and users
otherwise, with the common goal of seeing MPEG-4 succeed.
-----Original Message-----
From: Fevzi Karavelioglu [mailto:fevzi@tivo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2023 17:14
To: Rob Koenen
Cc: 'M4IF Discussion List (E-mail)'; Larry Horn (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems
Licensing Announced!!
>From what I have seen encoder and decoder together
>*may* still be 25 cts per box (this is under point 2. in the license, but
>I do not understand very well where a PVR would be categorized) although
>the cap is allways twice the 1 M$ (which you would hit at 4 million
boxes).
Hmm so it is not clear yet I guess.
I was reading an article on the CED daily, it states:
In the cable television, direct satellite television
and over-the-air
broadcast areas, manufacturers will pay 25 cents for
the right to
manufacture and sell each decoder and encoder.
Content providers
will pay a royalty of $1.25 for the paid-up right to
use the decoder
and use encoded MPEG-4 visual information.
So that prompted me think that for some PVRs it may cost 50 cents. per
box.
What do the manufacture refer to here? The box manufacturer or the
encoder/decoder chip
manufacturer? I guess both?
>I can't imagine that there is a 1.25 per channel fee, that would be
>end-of-game, but it cannot hurt having that formally confirmed from the
>lion's mouth.
Yes very true.
>Neither can I imagine end-users being on the line for paying a use fee
when
>they use PVRs, if only because royalties can be considered to have been
>paid elsewhere in the chain - but confirmation if this view would again
>be a good thing.
PVRs can record content and users can erase them without ever watching
them. What if a user only watches
the first 15 minutes then earses it from the disk? Should they (or
whoever) pay the full prize? So yes I agree it
would make more sense if the royalties are absorbed elsewhere as opposed
to the end user.
Fevzi.
Rob Koenen wrote:
Good questions indeed. From what I have seen encoder and decoder
together
*may* still be 25 cts per box (this is under point 2. in the license,
but
I do not understand very well where a PVR would be categorized) although
the cap is allways twice the 1 M$ (which you would hit at 4 million
boxes).
I can't imagine that there is a 1.25 per channel fee, that would be
end-of-game, but it cannot hurt having that formally confirmed from the
lion's mouth.
Neither can I imagine end-users being on the line for paying a use fee
when
they use PVRs, if only because royalties can be considered to have been
paid elsewhere in the chain - but confirmation if this view would again
be a good thing.
It is an intersting case anyway what happens if the same set top box is
used
to access services for multiple service providers - a stated goal for
MPEG-21.
The license seems to only reckon with the (currently dominant) model in
which
there is a one-to-one relation btween set top and service provider.
Keep the questions coming. MPEG LA, if I might suggest, could benefit
from
having a FAQ.
Rob
ps: please refrain from cross-posting to the News list, it will make
sure we
don't get multiple copies of the same discussion, and the News list was
set-up
for a different purpose than these discussions. Thanks for your
consideration.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fevzi Karavelioglu [mailto:fevzi@tivo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2023 11:23
> To: William J. Fulco
> Cc: Mikael Bourges-Sevenier; 'Rob Koenen'; 'M4IF news (E-mail)'; 'M4IF
> Discussion List (E-mail)'
> Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems
> Licensing Announced!!
>
>
> >OK - so let me get this straight...
> >
> >If say, SA, Mot or TiVo build an MPEG-4 set-top box they pay
> $0.25 - OK,
> >fine. However if the user subscribes to a 200-channel
> package on DirecTV or
> >Digital cable does this mean that every one of those channel
> >content-providers must pay $1.25 for a paid-up license to
> distribute to that
> >box? So on a "basic package" - someone (who is likely?) must
> pay $250 to
> >MPEG-LA per sub - if DirecTV has 20M subs by that time (and
> they'vet gone
> >MPEG-4), does that mean they (or somebody) owes MPEG-LA $2.5Billion?
>
> Good question. The channel line ups change, and channels are
> added and removed
> all the time. How would you monitor/manage this?
>
> In the case of TiVo it is likely each TiVo box built will
> cost extra 50 cents
> since it may employ both a decoder and an encoder.
>
> If it is true that billions of dollars would have to paid due
> to $1.25 per
> channel then the MSOs cannot afford to adapt MPEG4.
>
> Fevzi.
>
> "William J. Fulco" wrote:
>
> > This license's terms are much better...
> >
> > Clearly people like Apple and Real and such can just drop
> the $1M (well,
> > maybe "drop" is too flip a word - sorry Dave :-) and
> pay-off the license for
> > the year and then give away millions and millions of
> encoders/decoders...
> > for the little garage-shop codec-implementation house, well
> - this term
> > could be problematic... you're right about the "use for 3
> days and then
> > discard", I've got a dozen codecs like that on my system
> easily.... This is
> > going to be a tough one. I guess you could make your MPEG-4
> codec expire - I
> > wonder how that is going to play to the licensing guys? Is
> it "downloads" of
> > MPEG-4 codecs or is it "being used" codecs - I suspect it
> is the former...
> >
> > Here's a question I had...
> >
> > A line in the press release:
> >
> > "Current cable television, direct satellite television and
> over-the-air
> > broadcast that one day may allow a broadcaster to address
> its broadcast to a
> > specific viewer or subscriber will pay a royalty of $0.25
> for the right to
> > manufacture and sell each decoder and encoder and the party
> providing
> > content service to the subscriber will pay a royalty of
> $1.25 for the
> > paid-up right to use a decoder to decode and use encoded
> MPEG-4 Visual
> > information."
> >
> > OK - so let me get this straight...
> >
> > If say, SA, Mot or TiVo build an MPEG-4 set-top box they
> pay $0.25 - OK,
> > fine. However if the user subscribes to a 200-channel
> package on DirecTV or
> > Digital cable does this mean that every one of those channel
> > content-providers must pay $1.25 for a paid-up license to
> distribute to that
> > box? So on a "basic package" - someone (who is likely?)
> must pay $250 to
> > MPEG-LA per sub - if DirecTV has 20M subs by that time (and
> they'vet gone
> > MPEG-4), does that mean they (or somebody) owes MPEG-LA $2.5Billion?
> >
> > There is that implication about "addressable decoder" - so
> does that mean
> > that only the premium-channels like HBO will have to pay
> for each sub in a
> > system? If I have a premium-super-pack with dozens and dozens of
> > movie-channels do I/we/they have to pay (1.25 x (dozens and
> dozens)) dollars
> > for this package?
> >
> > Maybe this better than $0.02/hour content fee - but I'm not
> so sure it will
> > make CE MPEG-4 work for sat and cable systems. These
> particular economics
> > would seem to favor delivery of TV programming to such
> set-top devices via
> > broadband/web-site (Jordan will be happy) and not previous
> > delivery-infrastructure.
> >
> > But I digress...
> >
> > ++Bill
> > wjf@NetworkXXIII.com
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org
> > > [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Mikael
> > > Bourges-Sevenier
> > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2023 4:43 PM
> > > To: 'Rob Koenen'; 'M4IF news (E-mail)'; 'M4IF Discussion
> List (E-mail)'
> > > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems
> > > Licensing Announced!!
> > >
> > >
> > > > > However, what happens to companies that provide a freely
> > > > downloadable
> > > > > player? If I read correctly, they are subject to the
> $1M/y cap for
> > > > > video and $100k/y for Systems, am I correct?
> > > >
> > > > Sounds like it. If you are not in the video surveillance
> > > > business, you
> > > > may want to add Audio to your system (and you may even
> like audio
> > > > if you *are* in the surveillance business).
> > > >
> > > > These companies also seem entitled to distribute the first
> > > > 50,000 systems for free. But given the fact that you only
> > > > mention the caps and not the per en/de-coder royalties, you
> > > > must be thinking Big.
> > >
> > > These days, an internet player with 'cool' contents can
> easily reach
> > > 50000 installs/year even though many of them are often
> installed for few
> > > days and removed. Then the million dollar question: is
> there a 30-day
> > > money back guarantee? Just kidding ;-)
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Discuss mailing list
> > > Discuss@lists.m4if.org
> > > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss@lists.m4if.org
> > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.m4if.org
http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020717/84e1f196/attachment.html
From wjf NetworkXXIII.com Wed Jul 17 23:11:53 2002
From: wjf NetworkXXIII.com (William J. Fulco)
Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:33 2003
Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Licensing Announced!!
In-Reply-To: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59011B3352@exchange.epr.com>
Message-ID:
> It is an intersting case anyway what happens if the same set top
> box is used to access services for multiple service providers
You mean to say "WHEN the same set top..." ;-)
> - a stated goal for MPEG-21.
> The license seems to only reckon with the (currently dominant) model in
> which there is a one-to-one relation between set top and service provider.
This is almost always a problem when introducing paradigm-shifting
technology into a very large extant market. Look at Radio into Newspaper
markets, TV into Film Markets, VCRs into TV markets - the "powers that be"
always try to manage today's profits, relationships and business structures
over laying groundwork for what is to come.
CYA is much easier to write into a contract or license than ?what-if?.
I just want to see this revolution take place like the last few have - where
the FACT of a technology?s introduction is not and cannot be
killed/prevented/taxed-out-of-existence by the legal system (laws or
contracts) while at the same time allowing that there must be a reasonable
COST for the use/reuse of IP (like technology and content).
For the most part, this has been the way it has worked to date. Broadcasters
weren't allowed to kill or stop cable - but cable was not allowed to just
use broadcasters product for free either... same as the case for VCR etc.
This is one of Larry Lessig's oft made points. New technology must be
allowed to have a shot in the marketplace, but there?s not reason that it
has to be subsidized by the extant market players.
So, as long as the license terms allow reasonable adoption of this new
technology (unlike the current fees for web-radio, lets say) then full speed
ahead. People who develop IP should be paid for their work. However, if the
goal or effect of such ?payments? is to prevent a technology's wide-spread
adoption.. Well .. Careful Billy Tauzin is-a-legislatin? ;-)
++Bill
William J. Fulco
wjf@NetworkXXIII.com
310-927-4263 Cell
---------------------------------
Logic: When you absolutely, positively
have to refute every fallacy in the room.
> Keep the questions coming. MPEG LA, if I might suggest, could benefit from
> having a FAQ.
>
> Rob
>
> ps: please refrain from cross-posting to the News list, it will
> make sure we
> don't get multiple copies of the same discussion, and the News list was
> set-up
> for a different purpose than these discussions. Thanks for your
> consideration.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Fevzi Karavelioglu [mailto:fevzi@tivo.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2023 11:23
> > To: William J. Fulco
> > Cc: Mikael Bourges-Sevenier; 'Rob Koenen'; 'M4IF news (E-mail)'; 'M4IF
> > Discussion List (E-mail)'
> > Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems
> > Licensing Announced!!
> >
> >
> > >OK - so let me get this straight...
> > >
> > >If say, SA, Mot or TiVo build an MPEG-4 set-top box they pay
> > $0.25 - OK,
> > >fine. However if the user subscribes to a 200-channel
> > package on DirecTV or
> > >Digital cable does this mean that every one of those channel
> > >content-providers must pay $1.25 for a paid-up license to
> > distribute to that
> > >box? So on a "basic package" - someone (who is likely?) must
> > pay $250 to
> > >MPEG-LA per sub - if DirecTV has 20M subs by that time (and
> > they'vet gone
> > >MPEG-4), does that mean they (or somebody) owes MPEG-LA $2.5Billion?
> >
> > Good question. The channel line ups change, and channels are
> > added and removed
> > all the time. How would you monitor/manage this?
> >
> > In the case of TiVo it is likely each TiVo box built will
> > cost extra 50 cents
> > since it may employ both a decoder and an encoder.
> >
> > If it is true that billions of dollars would have to paid due
> > to $1.25 per
> > channel then the MSOs cannot afford to adapt MPEG4.
> >
> > Fevzi.
> >
> > "William J. Fulco" wrote:
> >
> > > This license's terms are much better...
> > >
> > > Clearly people like Apple and Real and such can just drop
> > the $1M (well,
> > > maybe "drop" is too flip a word - sorry Dave :-) and
> > pay-off the license for
> > > the year and then give away millions and millions of
> > encoders/decoders...
> > > for the little garage-shop codec-implementation house, well
> > - this term
> > > could be problematic... you're right about the "use for 3
> > days and then
> > > discard", I've got a dozen codecs like that on my system
> > easily.... This is
> > > going to be a tough one. I guess you could make your MPEG-4
> > codec expire - I
> > > wonder how that is going to play to the licensing guys? Is
> > it "downloads" of
> > > MPEG-4 codecs or is it "being used" codecs - I suspect it
> > is the former...
> > >
> > > Here's a question I had...
> > >
> > > A line in the press release:
> > >
> > > "Current cable television, direct satellite television and
> > over-the-air
> > > broadcast that one day may allow a broadcaster to address
> > its broadcast to a
> > > specific viewer or subscriber will pay a royalty of $0.25
> > for the right to
> > > manufacture and sell each decoder and encoder and the party
> > providing
> > > content service to the subscriber will pay a royalty of
> > $1.25 for the
> > > paid-up right to use a decoder to decode and use encoded
> > MPEG-4 Visual
> > > information."
> > >
> > > OK - so let me get this straight...
> > >
> > > If say, SA, Mot or TiVo build an MPEG-4 set-top box they
> > pay $0.25 - OK,
> > > fine. However if the user subscribes to a 200-channel
> > package on DirecTV or
> > > Digital cable does this mean that every one of those channel
> > > content-providers must pay $1.25 for a paid-up license to
> > distribute to that
> > > box? So on a "basic package" - someone (who is likely?)
> > must pay $250 to
> > > MPEG-LA per sub - if DirecTV has 20M subs by that time (and
> > they'vet gone
> > > MPEG-4), does that mean they (or somebody) owes MPEG-LA $2.5Billion?
> > >
> > > There is that implication about "addressable decoder" - so
> > does that mean
> > > that only the premium-channels like HBO will have to pay
> > for each sub in a
> > > system? If I have a premium-super-pack with dozens and dozens of
> > > movie-channels do I/we/they have to pay (1.25 x (dozens and
> > dozens)) dollars
> > > for this package?
> > >
> > > Maybe this better than $0.02/hour content fee - but I'm not
> > so sure it will
> > > make CE MPEG-4 work for sat and cable systems. These
> > particular economics
> > > would seem to favor delivery of TV programming to such
> > set-top devices via
> > > broadband/web-site (Jordan will be happy) and not previous
> > > delivery-infrastructure.
> > >
> > > But I digress...
> > >
> > > ++Bill
> > > wjf@NetworkXXIII.com
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org
> > > > [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Mikael
> > > > Bourges-Sevenier
> > > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2023 4:43 PM
> > > > To: 'Rob Koenen'; 'M4IF news (E-mail)'; 'M4IF Discussion
> > List (E-mail)'
> > > > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems
> > > > Licensing Announced!!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > However, what happens to companies that provide a freely
> > > > > downloadable
> > > > > > player? If I read correctly, they are subject to the
> > $1M/y cap for
> > > > > > video and $100k/y for Systems, am I correct?
> > > > >
> > > > > Sounds like it. If you are not in the video surveillance
> > > > > business, you
> > > > > may want to add Audio to your system (and you may even
> > like audio
> > > > > if you *are* in the surveillance business).
> > > > >
> > > > > These companies also seem entitled to distribute the first
> > > > > 50,000 systems for free. But given the fact that you only
> > > > > mention the caps and not the per en/de-coder royalties, you
> > > > > must be thinking Big.
> > > >
> > > > These days, an internet player with 'cool' contents can
> > easily reach
> > > > 50000 installs/year even though many of them are often
> > installed for few
> > > > days and removed. Then the million dollar question: is
> > there a 30-day
> > > > money back guarantee? Just kidding ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Mike
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Discuss mailing list
> > > > Discuss@lists.m4if.org
> > > > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Discuss mailing list
> > > Discuss@lists.m4if.org
> > > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.m4if.org
> http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
From rkoenen intertrust.com Wed Jul 17 23:13:39 2002
From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen)
Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:34 2003
Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Lice
nsing Announced!!
Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59011B3370@exchange.epr.com>
> Well .. Careful Billy Tauzin is-a-legislatin' ;-)
In the US he is, yes. r
From fevzi tivo.com Thu Jul 18 09:33:33 2002
From: fevzi tivo.com (Fevzi Karavelioglu)
Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:34 2003
Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Licensing
Announced!!
References: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59256497@exchange.epr.com>
Message-ID: <3D36DFCD.9A950A3C@tivo.com>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020718/4afecf80/attachment.html
From rkoenen intertrust.com Thu Jul 18 09:44:09 2002
From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen)
Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:34 2003
Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Lice
nsing Announced!!
Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59011B3381@exchange.epr.com>
DVD is indeed a kind of Packaged Media.
I don't think this clause covers VoD. In my view, that falls
under point 2 of the release.
( http://www.mpegla.com/news/n_02-07-15_m4v.html
)
I do not understand the 'transmitted' either.
The transactional fee refers to buying the disc (I think)
I will take these questions along with other ones in our Q&A
conference call, that M4IF members have with MPEG LA
tomorrow. We are looking into making the results of
that call generally available in some form.
For M4IF members on his list: here is where you can find the dial-in
information: http://www.m4if.org/private/licensing_meeting.php
Kind Regards,
Rob Koenen
-----Original Message-----
From: Fevzi Karavelioglu [mailto:fevzi@tivo.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2023 8:34
To: rob.koenen@m4if.org
Cc: 'M4IF Discussion List (E-mail)'; Larry Horn (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems
Licensing Announced!!
Rob,
Yeah you are right, we should use the original doc, thanks for the link.
Reading the news release, I found the item 3, the case of stored video,
interesting:
3. In the case of Stored Video (packaged media and video transmitted and
stored for viewing for which a transactional fee is paid), the replicator or
content provider will pay (a) US $0.01 per 30 minutes or part to a maximum
of US $0.04 per movie; (b) US $0.005 per 30 minutes or part thereof to a
maximum of US $0.02 per movie where the content of the Stored Video is 5
years or older (after it was copyrighted or subject to be copyrighted), and
(c) US $0.002 for a Stored Video of 12 minutes or less.
Can anybody shed any light on these terms,
packaged media (DVD?)
video transmitted and stored for viewing for which a transactional fee is
paid (such as PPV/VOD?, what about PVR?)
Fevzi.
Rob Koenen wrote:
Fevzi,Let's all work from the source, so that we don't work on
interpretationsform interpretations (although CED is very close to the
source): http://www.mpegla.com/news/n_02-07-15_m4v.html
I would like to note that
collecting royalties from end-users was never theintention as I understand
it, and I cannot imagine that having changed.Best,robDISCLAIMER: I am
interpreting the language from the release,and even though I have discussed
many MPEG-4 licensing issues whithmany people at many occasions, I may be
wrong. I am not a licensor, nor an agent for any of them. I represent my
members, an interesting collection of licensees, licensors and users
otherwise, with the common goal of seeing MPEG-4 succeed.
-----Original Message-----
From: Fevzi Karavelioglu [ mailto:fevzi@tivo.com ]
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2023 17:14
To: Rob Koenen
Cc: 'M4IF Discussion List (E-mail)'; Larry Horn (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems
Licensing Announced!!
>From what I have seen encoder and decoder together
>*may* still be 25 cts per box (this is under point 2. in the license, but
>I do not understand very well where a PVR would be categorized) although
>the cap is allways twice the 1 M$ (which you would hit at 4 million boxes).
Hmm so it is not clear yet I guess.
I was reading an article on the CED daily, it states:
In the cable television, direct satellite television
and over-the-air
broadcast areas, manufacturers will pay 25 cents for
the right to
manufacture and sell each decoder and encoder. Content
providers
will pay a royalty of $1.25 for the paid-up right to
use the decoder
and use encoded MPEG-4 visual information.
So that prompted me think that for some PVRs it may cost 50 cents. per box.
What do the manufacture refer to here? The box manufacturer or the
encoder/decoder chip
manufacturer? I guess both?
>I can't imagine that there is a 1.25 per channel fee, that would be
>end-of-game, but it cannot hurt having that formally confirmed from the
>lion's mouth.
Yes very true.
>Neither can I imagine end-users being on the line for paying a use fee when
>they use PVRs, if only because royalties can be considered to have been
>paid elsewhere in the chain - but confirmation if this view would again
>be a good thing.
PVRs can record content and users can erase them without ever watching them.
What if a user only watches
the first 15 minutes then earses it from the disk? Should they (or whoever)
pay the full prize? So yes I agree it
would make more sense if the royalties are absorbed elsewhere as opposed to
the end user.
Fevzi.
Rob Koenen wrote:
Good questions indeed. From what I have seen encoder and decoder together
*may* still be 25 cts per box (this is under point 2. in the license, but
I do not understand very well where a PVR would be categorized) although
the cap is allways twice the 1 M$ (which you would hit at 4 million boxes).
I can't imagine that there is a 1.25 per channel fee, that would be
end-of-game, but it cannot hurt having that formally confirmed from the
lion's mouth.
Neither can I imagine end-users being on the line for paying a use fee when
they use PVRs, if only because royalties can be considered to have been
paid elsewhere in the chain - but confirmation if this view would again
be a good thing.
It is an intersting case anyway what happens if the same set top box is used
to access services for multiple service providers - a stated goal for
MPEG-21.
The license seems to only reckon with the (currently dominant) model in
which
there is a one-to-one relation btween set top and service provider.
Keep the questions coming. MPEG LA, if I might suggest, could benefit from
having a FAQ.
Rob
ps: please refrain from cross-posting to the News list, it will make sure we
don't get multiple copies of the same discussion, and the News list was
set-up
for a different purpose than these discussions. Thanks for your
consideration.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fevzi Karavelioglu [ mailto:fevzi@tivo.com ]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2023 11:23
> To: William J. Fulco
> Cc: Mikael Bourges-Sevenier; 'Rob Koenen'; 'M4IF news (E-mail)'; 'M4IF
> Discussion List (E-mail)'
> Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems
> Licensing Announced!!
>
>
> >OK - so let me get this straight...
> >
> >If say, SA, Mot or TiVo build an MPEG-4 set-top box they pay
> $0.25 - OK,
> >fine. However if the user subscribes to a 200-channel
> package on DirecTV or
> >Digital cable does this mean that every one of those channel
> >content-providers must pay $1.25 for a paid-up license to
> distribute to that
> >box? So on a "basic package" - someone (who is likely?) must
> pay $250 to
> >MPEG-LA per sub - if DirecTV has 20M subs by that time (and
> they'vet gone
> >MPEG-4), does that mean they (or somebody) owes MPEG-LA $2.5Billion?
>
> Good question. The channel line ups change, and channels are
> added and removed
> all the time. How would you monitor/manage this?
>
> In the case of TiVo it is likely each TiVo box built will
> cost extra 50 cents
> since it may employ both a decoder and an encoder.
>
> If it is true that billions of dollars would have to paid due
> to $1.25 per
> channel then the MSOs cannot afford to adapt MPEG4.
>
> Fevzi.
>
> "William J. Fulco" wrote:
>
> > This license's terms are much better...
> >
> > Clearly people like Apple and Real and such can just drop
> the $1M (well,
> > maybe "drop" is too flip a word - sorry Dave :-) and
> pay-off the license for
> > the year and then give away millions and millions of
> encoders/decoders...
> > for the little garage-shop codec-implementation house, well
> - this term
> > could be problematic... you're right about the "use for 3
> days and then
> > discard", I've got a dozen codecs like that on my system
> easily.... This is
> > going to be a tough one. I guess you could make your MPEG-4
> codec expire - I
> > wonder how that is going to play to the licensing guys? Is
> it "downloads" of
> > MPEG-4 codecs or is it "being used" codecs - I suspect it
> is the former...
> >
> > Here's a question I had...
> >
> > A line in the press release:
> >
> > "Current cable television, direct satellite television and
> over-the-air
> > broadcast that one day may allow a broadcaster to address
> its broadcast to a
> > specific viewer or subscriber will pay a royalty of $0.25
> for the right to
> > manufacture and sell each decoder and encoder and the party
> providing
> > content service to the subscriber will pay a royalty of
> $1.25 for the
> > paid-up right to use a decoder to decode and use encoded
> MPEG-4 Visual
> > information."
> >
> > OK - so let me get this straight...
> >
> > If say, SA, Mot or TiVo build an MPEG-4 set-top box they
> pay $0.25 - OK,
> > fine. However if the user subscribes to a 200-channel
> package on DirecTV or
> > Digital cable does this mean that every one of those channel
> > content-providers must pay $1.25 for a paid-up license to
> distribute to that
> > box? So on a "basic package" - someone (who is likely?)
> must pay $250 to
> > MPEG-LA per sub - if DirecTV has 20M subs by that time (and
> they'vet gone
> > MPEG-4), does that mean they (or somebody) owes MPEG-LA $2.5Billion?
> >
> > There is that implication about "addressable decoder" - so
> does that mean
> > that only the premium-channels like HBO will have to pay
> for each sub in a
> > system? If I have a premium-super-pack with dozens and dozens of
> > movie-channels do I/we/they have to pay (1.25 x (dozens and
> dozens)) dollars
> > for this package?
> >
> > Maybe this better than $0.02/hour content fee - but I'm not
> so sure it will
> > make CE MPEG-4 work for sat and cable systems. These
> particular economics
> > would seem to favor delivery of TV programming to such
> set-top devices via
> > broadband/web-site (Jordan will be happy) and not previous
> > delivery-infrastructure.
> >
> > But I digress...
> >
> > ++Bill
> > wjf@NetworkXXIII.com
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org
> > > [ mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org
]On Behalf Of Mikael
> > > Bourges-Sevenier
> > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2023 4:43 PM
> > > To: 'Rob Koenen'; 'M4IF news (E-mail)'; 'M4IF Discussion
> List (E-mail)'
> > > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems
> > > Licensing Announced!!
> > >
> > >
> > > > > However, what happens to companies that provide a freely
> > > > downloadable
> > > > > player? If I read correctly, they are subject to the
> $1M/y cap for
> > > > > video and $100k/y for Systems, am I correct?
> > > >
> > > > Sounds like it. If you are not in the video surveillance
> > > > business, you
> > > > may want to add Audio to your system (and you may even
> like audio
> > > > if you *are* in the surveillance business).
> > > >
> > > > These companies also seem entitled to distribute the first
> > > > 50,000 systems for free. But given the fact that you only
> > > > mention the caps and not the per en/de-coder royalties, you
> > > > must be thinking Big.
> > >
> > > These days, an internet player with 'cool' contents can
> easily reach
> > > 50000 installs/year even though many of them are often
> installed for few
> > > days and removed. Then the million dollar question: is
> there a 30-day
> > > money back guarantee? Just kidding ;-)
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Discuss mailing list
> > > Discuss@lists.m4if.org
> > > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss@lists.m4if.org
> > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.m4if.org
http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020718/ef2d1567/attachment.html
From fevzi tivo.com Thu Jul 18 09:49:56 2002
From: fevzi tivo.com (Fevzi Karavelioglu)
Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:34 2003
Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] MPEG-4 Visual and Systems Licensing
Announced!!
References: <92800BEF04DB704192951C1A407CD91D1A59D8@mrsmith.divxnetworks.com>
Message-ID: <3D36E3A4.A3E6E611@tivo.com>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020718/04c7ba15/attachment.html
From robert streamcrest.com Thu Jul 18 13:33:42 2002
From: robert streamcrest.com (Streamcrest Associates)
Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:34 2003
Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Visual and Systems Licensing Announced
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020718122034.036cc500@pop3.norton.antivirus>
I sense there's some confusion about the licensing terms from MPEG-LA.
Video IPR is an area with its own vernacular - Packaged media means
programming stored on a recording medium which is then sold to a consumer.
Examples would be DVD, VCD, CD, etc.
I would like to hear a further definition of "stored content" but my
understanding is this is intended to cover content stored on a device as a
result of a transaction (payment) between a content supplier and the
consumer. Thus, this would cover feature films that would be purchased for
repeat viewing. I think a grey area exists for content that is purchased on
a pay-per-view basis for one-time viewing, as it is only stored as a side
effect of the transmission process.
It's strictly my interpretation of the license terms, which could be wrong,
but I've posted some summary charts explaining them at www.streamcrest.com
- click on the "MPEG-4 Information" button.
____________________________________________________________
Robert Bleidt
Streamcrest Associates
+1 408-981-0822 Mobile +1 408-327-2245 Office
robert@streamcrest.com www.streamcrest.com
From LHorn mpegla.com Thu Jul 18 16:05:47 2002
From: LHorn mpegla.com (Larry Horn)
Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:35 2003
Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: Visual and Systems Licensing Announced
Message-ID: <8DDF6652F243A7419BC9BA168417EDDC12CBB3@oxford.mpegla.com>
Hello, Robert. It's good to hear from you again. I think the information you provided should be helpful to everyone. Because of the question you raised, I'll go one step further. Packaged media is fundamentally as you've described it - MPEG-4 video information which is duplicated on physical media (e.g., DVD). In addition to Packaged Media, MPEG-4 Stored Video also includes MPEG-4 Video information that is transmitted to an end user. To be treated as MPEG-4 Stored Video, however, MPEG-4 video information must be that for which an end user makes specific payment (e.g., title by title) and which has associated rights that do not prevent it from being viewed for at least 20 times or 365 days (e.g., the electronic equivalent of a DVD). Therefore, content purchased for one-time viewing would not be Stored Video.
Regards,
Larry Horn
-----Original Message-----
From: Streamcrest Associates [mailto:robert@streamcrest.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2023 3:34 PM
To: 'M4IF Discussion List (E-mail)'
Cc: Rob Koenen; Larry Horn
Subject: Visual and Systems Licensing Announced
I sense there's some confusion about the licensing terms from MPEG-LA.
Video IPR is an area with its own vernacular - Packaged media means
programming stored on a recording medium which is then sold to a consumer.
Examples would be DVD, VCD, CD, etc.
I would like to hear a further definition of "stored content" but my
understanding is this is intended to cover content stored on a device as a
result of a transaction (payment) between a content supplier and the
consumer. Thus, this would cover feature films that would be purchased for
repeat viewing. I think a grey area exists for content that is purchased on
a pay-per-view basis for one-time viewing, as it is only stored as a side
effect of the transmission process.
It's strictly my interpretation of the license terms, which could be wrong,
but I've posted some summary charts explaining them at www.streamcrest.com
- click on the "MPEG-4 Information" button.
____________________________________________________________
Robert Bleidt
Streamcrest Associates
+1 408-981-0822 Mobile +1 408-327-2245 Office
robert@streamcrest.com www.streamcrest.com
From rb hdtv.com Fri Jul 19 17:14:49 2002
From: rb hdtv.com (Robert Bleidt)
Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:35 2003
Subject: [M4IF Discuss] A simple table to make sense of the MPEG-4 visual profiles
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020719160901.03798670@pop3.norton.antivirus>
Some of my work involves explaining MPEG-4 in terms a non-expert can
understand, so I've been using a two-page table to explain the
relationships between visual profiles, levels, tools, and object types. In
case its of use to anyone, I've posted it at www.streamcrest.com - click on
the "MPEG-4 Information" button.
I'm always concerned about distributing mis-information, so if you find an
error or have any comments, please let me know.
____________________________________________________________
Robert Bleidt
Streamcrest Associates
+1 408-981-0822 Mobile +1 408-327-2245 Office
robert@streamcrest.com www.streamcrest.com
From rkoenen intertrust.com Fri Jul 19 17:28:51 2002
From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen)
Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:35 2003
Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Q&A with MPEG LA today
Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59011B33F7@exchange.epr.com>
M4IF Members and Discussers,
The Q&A with Larry Horn of MPEG LA went well today, lots of good
questions were asked. Unfortunately, we were not able to tape the
thing, as become clear after the session. Fortunately, however, I
have kept notes of what was said, and we intend to publish these
notes coming Monday, when we have had a chance to check them for
correctness and completeness. My typing skills have not allowed me
to provide a literal transcript, but I hope to have captured the
essence of what was Q-ed and A-ed
Kind Regards,
Rob Koenen
From rkoenen intertrust.com Mon Jul 22 23:43:32 2002
From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen)
Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:35 2003
Subject: [M4IF Discuss] A simple table to make sense of the MPEG-4 vis
ual profiles
Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59011B3455@exchange.epr.com>
Thanks Robert.
This is useful.
There is definitively a need for more explanation and insight.
We will add the link to the patent info page:
http://www.m4if.org/patents/
Of course the definitive reference is the license itself, and
I hope we will be provided with similar information by the
licensors, as the terms surely aren't as transparent as they
are for MPEG-2.
Best,
Rob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Bleidt [mailto:rb@hdtv.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 19, 2023 16:15
> To: 'M4IF Discussion List (E-mail)'
> Subject: [M4IF Discuss] A simple table to make sense of the MPEG-4
> visual profiles
>
>
> Some of my work involves explaining MPEG-4 in terms a non-expert can
> understand, so I've been using a two-page table to explain the
> relationships between visual profiles, levels, tools, and
> object types. In
> case its of use to anyone, I've posted it at
> www.streamcrest.com - click on
> the "MPEG-4 Information" button.
>
> I'm always concerned about distributing mis-information, so
> if you find an
> error or have any comments, please let me know.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Robert Bleidt
> Streamcrest Associates
> +1 408-981-0822 Mobile +1 408-327-2245 Office
> robert@streamcrest.com www.streamcrest.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.m4if.org
> http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
From rkoenen intertrust.com Tue Jul 23 11:12:21 2002
From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen)
Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:37 2003
Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Transcript of 19 July Licensing Q&A with MPEG LA available
Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59011B3469@exchange.epr.com>
Discuss List
The transcript of last Friday's (19 July) M4IF telephone Q&A with MPEG LA
about Visual and Systems Licensing is now available on our website.
Go here www.m4if.org and follow directions found in Hot News.
Best Regards,
Rob
From craig pcube.com Tue Jul 23 17:09:01 2002
From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier)
Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:37 2003
Subject: [M4IF Discuss] News: Forgent claims JPEG patent
Message-ID:
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-945735.html
Forgent claims JPEG patent
By Robert Lemos
Special to ZDNet News
July 23, 2002, 4:30 AM PT
A small videoconferencing company is laying claim to the ubiquitous
JPEG format, igniting a backlash from some consumers and from a
standards organization.
Austin, Texas-based Forgent Networks posted a press release to its
site earlier this month claiming to own a patent covering the
technology behind JPEG, one of the most popular formats for
compressing and sharing images on the Internet. According to the
firm, the devices covered by the patent include cameras, cell phones,
camcorders, personal digital assistants, scanners and other devices.
It took a little more than a week for the statement to find its way
to the Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) committee, which
denounced any attempts to derive fees from the standard.
"It has always been a strong goal of the JPEG committee that its
standards should be implementable in their baseline form without
payment of royalty and license fees, and the committee would like to
record their disappointment that some organizations appear to be
working in conflict with this goal," Richard Clark, managing director
of U.K.-based Web software company Elysium and the head of the U.K.
JPEG delegation, wrote on the committee's behalf.
Patent claims are common in the technology industry--the real trick
is to persuade companies to pay royalties. Scores of dot-com
companies, for example, claimed to own key e-commerce patents in the
late 1990s, and their shares often soared when their patents were
granted.
But most companies failed to generate enough royalties to keep them
out of bankruptcy court, much less generate million-dollar paydays.
In Forgent's case, because the claim strikes at the heart of a widely
used consumer technology, it sparked an immediate response from an
array of people.
"Maybe this type of patent nonsense will finally get more companies
to see that open standards are in fact a safer way to build their
products," a member of the Slashdot community wrote in one of more
than 1,200 comments posted on the tech news and discussion Web site.
Such responses have followed other questionable claims to Internet
patents, such as Amazon's infamous 1-Click patent and British
Telecom's claims to have created hyperlinking.
Patent "in the ballpark"
So, is Forgent taking a shot in the dark at generating some royalty
revenue or does it have a legitimate claim?
In this case, Forgent's patent No. 4,698,672--or "672" as it is being
called--appears to stand up to initial technical scrutiny, said Rich
Belgard, an independent patent consultant. It has both a solid
technical pedigree--created by a research scientist well known in the
image compression community--and apparently applies to the JPEG
technology.
"It's in the ballpark of reality," Belgard said.
Moreover, the firm has been able to persuade two Japanese companies
to ante up cash.
In April, it signed a deal to license the patent for $15 million with
a large, though unnamed, Japanese digital camera player, according to
company filings and to an industry expert.
In May, Forgent signed a "multimillion-dollar patent license" with
Sony for the compression technology, the company said in a press
release and in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Jeffrey Dabbs, a research analyst with San Antonio-based financial
research firm Kercheville & Co., estimates the actual fee to be
between $17 million and $18 million.
"They think there is $100 million that they can get from Japanese
companies," said Dabbs, who owns stock in Forgent.
A patent miracle?
The focus on patents is relatively new for Forgent, a company that
for more than 20 years had been known as Video Telecom, or VTel,
before changing its name in August 2001.
A patent deal nearly two years ago that resulted in $45 million
payoff whetted Forgent's appetite for the world of intellectual
property. Since then, a new management team has taken the company
from a maker of videoconferencing hardware with declining revenue to
a video technology firm focusing on software and patents. Its
portfolio includes nearly 40 patents, with another 35 in the works.
The claim to JPEG technology ownership arose from a data compression
patent that Forgent acquired from videoconferencing hardware maker
Compression Labs in 1997, said Ken Kalinoski, chief technology
officer for Forgent.
If he's right, it couldn't come at a better time for the company,
whose revenue has hit the doldrums. In 1997, the company collected
$200 million selling high-end video conferencing solutions and
services, but for the latest year, ending July 2001, sales fell to
$38 million.
In a corporate restructuring and management shakeup, the company
exited the video hardware business in August 2000 and slashed more
than 250 jobs.
Kalinoski believes patent 672 has incredible potential. However,
while Forgent has gotten two companies to sign its licensing
agreement, sooner or later the patent will be contested. Kalinoski
believes the company is ready.
"This is not a willy-nilly scenario that has come up," he said.
"There has been six months of due diligence as to what this patent is
all about."
Patents filed on Internet technology and business practices have
taken off in recent years and are nearly always contentious.
Two years ago, Unisys accelerated its program of collecting royalties
on the Graphics Interchange Format, or GIF, another popular format
for graphics on the Web. Unisys started pursuing licensing in earnest
after the Web caught on with mainstream consumers, and it reached
agreements with Microsoft and AOL in 1996.
Other companies have resorted to a controversial tactic of applying
for patents while pushing the technology in question in standards
committees.
In 1995, Dell Computer agreed not to enforce its patent rights for
the technology included in the VL-bus graphics standards, as part of
an agreement with the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC had charged
Dell with pushing for the adoption of a technology in the standards
committee, without disclosing when asked, that the company held a
patent.
Sun Microsystems and Rambus have both been investigated for similar actions.
Who was first?
Forgent didn't do any of the original work of the patent that they
now own; that was done by Compression Labs' Wen-Hsiung Chen and
Daniel Klenke.
Chen, who joined Cisco after selling Compression Labs and a second
firm to the networking giant, published several papers in the 1970s
and 1980s on image compression and transformation. Some experts
credit him with the creation of a specific kind of image
manipulation--the discrete cosine transform--used in the JPEG format.
Yet he or others may have published all the components of the 672
patent more than a year before before the application date for the
patent. Known as prior art, such publications can undermine a patent.
"There is a lot of work around that can predate the Forgent patent,"
said the JPEG's Clark. "Most of the JPEG standard was pretty well
formulated by the time this patent came out."
While Chen and Klenke applied for 672 in October 1986, the same year
that the Joint Photographic Experts Group was formed, the push for
the standard had begun more than four years earlier. Three
international standards bodies--the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO), the International Telegraph and Telephone
Consultative Committee (CCITT), and the International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)--had begun the search for an image
compression standard in 1982.
Clark of the JPEG group said Chen may have sat on one of the committees.
Chen could not be reached for comment, but Kalinoski of Forgent
denied the claim and stressed that he believed that Chen never took
part in any committees. "We have had those discussions with Wen and
absolutely he has confirmed that he had no part in those standards
discussions."
Even if he had, it's unlikely his participation would be considered
improper, said patent expert Belgard.
"Even if he was on the committee, if there was no rule (prohibiting
patent applications on the standard), then...it's not illegal," he
said.
That leaves the question of prior art as the issue that will
determine whether the patent is valid.
While the debate rages, Forgent refuses to slow its royalties effort.
Kalinoski said the company is looking for more royalties from other
digital camera makers and the company is looking at companies in
other industries as well.
One certainty: Forgent has a wide swath of the Internet in its
sights, as it will consider any company that doesn't pay to use JPEG
a pirate.
"This is very analogous to the music industry, who have said that the
people who have been using our methods and materials have been
stealing our intellectual property and this needs to stop," Kalinoski
said. "We are just asking for the same thing."
From nmathur.ext rd.francetelecom.com Mon Jul 29 12:44:32 2002
From: nmathur.ext rd.francetelecom.com (zze-tdf tvnum MATHUR N ext FTRD/TDF/REN)
Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:37 2003
Subject: [M4IF Discuss] DMIF and Amendment 7
Message-ID: <32808FAD125F8A49A3145D4BB67ADC40239602@lanmhs50.rd.francetelecom.fr>
Hi,
I'm currently working on a review of technologies that would suit digital television. One of them is the MHP standard, which relies on Java code and MPEG-2 TS, but an enhancement based on MPEG-4 is already being talked about.
The problem is that I'm a bit confused about the DMIF layer that is introduced in MPEG-4 and the "amendment 7" that specifies how mpeg-4 data may be carried over mpeg-2 TS and PS.
Do they represent two different visions of how data can be carried in a broadcasting environment, or does "amendment 7" imply the use of DMIF?
Could someone enlighten me on this point?
Moreover, I'm looking for documents related to actual implementation of mpeg-4 over mpeg-2 and of DMIF. Any suggestion would be welcomed!
Best Regards,
Nivedita MATHUR
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020729/258fe8dd/attachment.html