From ben interframemedia.com Tue Jun 4 12:58:04 2002 From: ben interframemedia.com (Ben Waggoner) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:27 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Ben's MPEG-4 article online Message-ID: Folks, My DV Magazine MPEG-4 codec review is now online. I look at seven different MPEG-4 codecs and compare and contrast their performance. It includes a hundred or so downloadable files created with different source files and settings with the different encoders. The work was done in January, so some of the encoders have more recent versions, of course. You'll need to sign up for a free DV.com account to read it. Ben Waggoner Interframe Media Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding Cleaner Tutorial: www.saferseas.com/navseries/adclean.html Stanford class: www.digitalmediaacademy.org/courses/videocompress.html Preorder my Book: www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/157820111X/benwaggoner-20 From craig pcube.com Wed Jun 5 09:25:59 2002 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:28 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Apple settles MPEG-4 dispute? Message-ID: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-932224.html Apple settles MPEG-4 dispute? By Joe Wilcox Special to ZDNet News June 4, 2002, 1:35 PM PT Apple Computer on Tuesday released a public preview of QuickTime 6, signaling the possible end of a heated dispute between the computer maker and a licensing group that controls the use of MPEG-4 media technology. The computer maker took the unusual step of releasing the software in absence of a final licensing agreement with MPEG LA, a licensing body representing 18 patent holders that have claims on underlying MPEG-4 technology, a next-generation compression format for video and audio. "The licensing stuff is getting worked out," Apple CEO Steve Jobs said in an interview Tuesday. Every 'i' is not dotted and every 't' is not crossed, but it's getting there. I have a lot of confidence it will. This is too important not to get worked out." Jobs said he believed the MPEG-4 licensing issues "will be worked out" by the time QuickTime 6 is officially released later this summer. Jobs emphasized that MPEG-4 would be vital to more broadly opening up streaming of audio or video on the Web and giving consumers more choice. Right now, much of the streaming is tied to proprietary codecs used by Apple, RealNetworks or Microsoft. "MPEG-2 still delivers the best video quality around," Jobs said. "It is the gold standard. It is the world standard...The same group that created MPEG-2, created MPEG-4, which is the next, new international standard for digital video, for streaming, and for other uses. It delivers video quality as good as MPEG-2 at about a third less the bit rate." MPEG LA confirmed that a final license had yet to be hammered out and said the QuickTime release indicated faith on Apple's part that the licensing terms would be acceptable. "We don't have any new information on the licensing, and we hope that we'll have final terms sometime this summer," said Larry Horn, vice president of licensing and business development for MPEG LA. "That being said, Apple's announcement shows great confidence that a reasonable license from all the various patent holders will be available." MPEG-4 is the successor to the technologies that spawned the MP3 audio explosion. Like most current media formats, its audio and video technologies aim to condense large digital packages into small files that can be easily transmitted online. But the hype around the technology focuses on its potential to give video itself the kind of interactivity now found only in Web sites and video games. Hoping to bank on this interest for patent holders, MPEG-4 in January proposed imposing a per-minute charge on streaming, a requirement that Apple and other potential MPEG-4 adopters consider too costly. Apple unveiled the new version of its streaming media software featuring MPEG-4 technology in February, but it delayed the version's release because of the licensing dispute. RealNetworks also has raised concerned about the licensing plan. The proposed terms include a one-year grace period from the time the program starts and covers uses before the launch of the license. Industry sources said they expected the final licensing agreement to mirror those terms. Under pressure One prominent MPEG-4 figure noted that MPEG LA is under pressure to offer competitive licensing terms, and that pressure may have helped reassure Apple that it could release the QuickTime software before the final license. "MPEG LA has been talking to many potential licensees, and they're taking comments from the market very seriously," said Rob Koenen, chairman of the MPEG Requirements Group. "They're looking at this as a product that they have to sell, and the price has to be right." Apple plans to release QuickTime 6 with Jaguar, the next version of Mac OS X, in late summer. QuickTime 6 would be the first Mac OS X media player to support MPEG-4. Currently, only Apple and Microsoft offer Mac OS X media players. But Microsoft's media player only works as a standalone or with the Internet Explorer 5.1 browser. Windows Media Player for Mac OS X is not compatible with rival browsers such as AOL Time Warner's Netscape 6. RealNetworks has committed to releasing a Mac OS X version of its media player, but it has yet to do so. "The ISMA (Internet Streaming Media Alliance) is pleased that industry support for MPEG-4 remains strong, as is evidenced by Apple's latest announcement," said ISMA President Tom Jacobs. "The ISMA membership continues to work toward interoperable approaches for transporting and viewing rich media, and we believe that MPEG-4 is a superb content choice. We look forward to MPEG-LA soon publishing final licensing terms, and the ISMA has high expectations that amenable terms for all will be reached." Tuesday's release of the QuickTime 6 beta could be viewed as a pre-emptive strike against Microsoft, which is expected this summer to offer a test version of its next-generation digital media client and server software, code-named Corona. Microsoft has not yet committed to supporting MPEG-4, working instead on its own proprietary codecs and streaming technologies. More importantly, Microsoft does not plan to initially offer a Corona player for the Mac when the technology debuts later this year. "We'll focus on other platforms like the Mac primarily to ensure Windows Media content playback," said Jonathan Usher, director of the Windows Digital Media Division at Microsoft. "There will not be a separate Corona player in that time frame." Usher said he "can't comment" about whether Microsoft would release a Corona player for the Mac. "Our focus right now for the Corona time frame is Windows XP and other versions of Windows." News.com's Paul Festa contributed to this report. -- Regards Craig Birkmaier Pcube Labs From craig pcube.com Wed Jun 5 09:38:02 2002 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:28 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] News: Steve Jobs: MPEG-4 is the next big thing Message-ID: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-932474.html Steve Jobs: MPEG-4 is the next big thing By Joe Wilcox Special to ZDNet News June 5, 2002, 4:00 AM PT Is MPEG-4 video technology the next big thing? Apple Computer's Steve Jobs thinks so. On Tuesday the company released a public preview of QuickTime 6, Apple's proprietary media player. What was unusual about it was the absence of a final licensing agreement with a patent group that holds the rights to MPEG-4, a next-generation compression format for video and audio and the technology that QuickTime is built around. Jobs says that Apple is close to making a pact with MPEG LA, a licensing body representing 18 patent holders that have claims on MPEG-4 technology. Yet prior delays and debates with the group could still derail those plans. In an interview with CNET News.com, the Apple CEO talked about the range of MPEG-4 technology and also touched on new plans to make the eMac available for the retail market. Q: Is your release of the QuickTime 6 preview a sign that licensing issues for MPEG-4 have been worked out? A: The licensing stuff is getting worked out. It isn't totally worked out yet. Every "i" is not dotted and every "t" is not crossed, but it's getting there. I have a lot of confidence it will. This is too important not to get worked out. We'll be shipping QuickTime 6 as part of Jaguar, our next major release of Mac OS X, which ships later this summer. I expect stuff will be worked out by then. What does QuickTime 6 mean for Apple and its customers? If you recall, Apple sort of invented digital video with QuickTime. Everybody kind of went their own way eventually, with Apple having its own proprietary codecs and RealNetworks having its own proprietary codecs and Microsoft having its own proprietary codecs. And the one thing--and it has kind of been a Tower of Babel--is MPEG-2. As you know, that was the breakthrough that really created the DVD industry, and MPEG-2 is used today by every DVD and every DVD player. It is an international standard. MPEG-2 still delivers the best video quality around. It is the gold standard. So people started realizing this is what we need for digital video that we're going to use for streaming and other uses at lower bandwidth. The same group that created MPEG-2 created MPEG-4, which is the next, new international standard for digital video, for streaming and for other uses. What's so great about MPEG-4? It delivers video quality as good as MPEG-2 at about one-third less the bit rate. But then you can crank down the bit rate for lower bandwidth connections and it scales down beautifully. So you can deliver incredible streaming video with MPEG-4. It has got higher quality than anything out there--including Microsoft's upcoming Corona--and it's totally scalable. Everybody's jumping on this bandwagon. We've announced we're going to switch over to MPEG-4. Real has said they're going to. All the cell phone companies are going to be using it; it is the standard for third-generation cell phone video streaming. It also features AAC (Advanced Audio Coding) audio, which is the best audio around. It blows away MP3 (and) Windows Media. And it also is the audio format adopted by all satellite radio (companies). So this is gathering a tremendous amount of steam, and I think everybody is going to be cutting over to MPEG-4, with the possible exception of Microsoft, which is going to try and push its Corona technology that comes out later this year. They haven't gone into a preview or beta mode yet, but they said they were going to release it sometime this year. How important do you think MPEG-4 will be to opening the barriers that block digital media? I think it's going to be exactly like what MPEG-2 did. It's going to create whole new industries, because it's going to create a world standard. MPEG-2 created the whole DVD industry. I think MPEG-4 is going to be really big. QuickTime 6 is the first real implementation of MPEG-4 to be released. Not only is it a client, but with QuickTime Streaming Server and QuickTime Broadcaster, which allows real-time broadcasting of MPEG-4, we're providing an end-to-end solution for MPEG-4. And of course, it's compatible with all MPEG-4-compliant players. Many authors create their content in QuickTime. How important is getting there first with MPEG-4? Apple has pretty much historically always gotten there first. It got there first with digital video and QuickTime. I think that Apple always has had the highest-quality stuff and been a little ahead. But what we're doing here that's different is we're adopting a standard. We're not off doing our own thing. We are adopting the next big standard. It's sort of like adopting TCP/IP or adopting HTML. This is the next one of those. With Mac OS X and other products, Apple has been pushing more open, rather than proprietary, standards. Absolutely. I think the list of open standards we are supporting now is long--everything from PDF (Portable Document Format) for our imaging model, OpenGL for our 3D model, to Unix itself--FreeBSD Unix, which is totally open sourced with Darwin--to obviously all the communications protocols we support, which are all open standards. It's a lot of stuff. We do great implementations of them, and we really do believe in open standards. It's working for us. We have customers calling us up now about Mac OS X who wouldn't even talk to us when we banged on their door before with Mac OS 9 or its predecessors. We're getting a lot of interest because of this strategy. As you may know, in Jaguar our whole directory service is going to LDAP (Lightweight Directory Access Protocol). There's a lot of support in our customer base for this and, again, we're able to attract a lot of new customers. Rest of story truncated. -- Regards Craig Birkmaier Pcube Labs From rkoenen intertrust.com Wed Jun 5 08:29:13 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:28 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Apple settles MPEG-4 dispute? Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF5792@exchange.epr.com> Thanks Craig. As an FYI - articles like these are usually linked from our homepage, www.m4if.org All - If you find one that isn't linked from the homepage, you can register them here: http://www.m4if.org/news/newsregister.php With respect to this arcticle - I pointed out to Paul that it wasn't MPEG-4 that proposed licensing terms, but a number of owners of patents that are essential to MPEG-4's implementation. Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Craig Birkmaier [mailto:craig@pcube.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2023 5:26 > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Apple settles MPEG-4 dispute? > > > http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-932224.html > > Apple settles MPEG-4 dispute? > By Joe Wilcox > Special to ZDNet News > June 4, 2002, 1:35 PM PT > > Apple Computer on Tuesday released a public preview of QuickTime 6, > signaling the possible end of a heated dispute between the computer > maker and a licensing group that controls the use of MPEG-4 media > technology. > > The computer maker took the unusual step of releasing the software in > absence of a final licensing agreement with MPEG LA, a licensing body > representing 18 patent holders that have claims on underlying MPEG-4 > technology, a next-generation compression format for video and audio. > > "The licensing stuff is getting worked out," Apple CEO Steve Jobs > said in an interview Tuesday. Every 'i' is not dotted and every 't' > is not crossed, but it's getting there. I have a lot of confidence it > will. This is too important not to get worked out." > > Jobs said he believed the MPEG-4 licensing issues "will be worked > out" by the time QuickTime 6 is officially released later this summer. > > Jobs emphasized that MPEG-4 would be vital to more broadly opening up > streaming of audio or video on the Web and giving consumers more > choice. Right now, much of the streaming is tied to proprietary > codecs used by Apple, RealNetworks or Microsoft. > > "MPEG-2 still delivers the best video quality around," Jobs said. "It > is the gold standard. It is the world standard...The same group that > created MPEG-2, created MPEG-4, which is the next, new international > standard for digital video, for streaming, and for other uses. It > delivers video quality as good as MPEG-2 at about a third less the > bit rate." > > MPEG LA confirmed that a final license had yet to be hammered out and > said the QuickTime release indicated faith on Apple's part that the > licensing terms would be acceptable. > > "We don't have any new information on the licensing, and we hope that > we'll have final terms sometime this summer," said Larry Horn, vice > president of licensing and business development for MPEG LA. "That > being said, Apple's announcement shows great confidence that a > reasonable license from all the various patent holders will be > available." > > MPEG-4 is the successor to the technologies that spawned the MP3 > audio explosion. Like most current media formats, its audio and video > technologies aim to condense large digital packages into small files > that can be easily transmitted online. But the hype around the > technology focuses on its potential to give video itself the kind of > interactivity now found only in Web sites and video games. > > Hoping to bank on this interest for patent holders, MPEG-4 in January > proposed imposing a per-minute charge on streaming, a requirement > that Apple and other potential MPEG-4 adopters consider too costly. > Apple unveiled the new version of its streaming media software > featuring MPEG-4 technology in February, but it delayed the version's > release because of the licensing dispute. RealNetworks also has > raised concerned about the licensing plan. > > The proposed terms include a one-year grace period from the time the > program starts and covers uses before the launch of the license. > Industry sources said they expected the final licensing agreement to > mirror those terms. > > Under pressure > One prominent MPEG-4 figure noted that MPEG LA is under pressure to > offer competitive licensing terms, and that pressure may have helped > reassure Apple that it could release the QuickTime software before > the final license. > > "MPEG LA has been talking to many potential licensees, and they're > taking comments from the market very seriously," said Rob Koenen, > chairman of the MPEG Requirements Group. "They're looking at this as > a product that they have to sell, and the price has to be right." > > Apple plans to release QuickTime 6 with Jaguar, the next version of > Mac OS X, in late summer. QuickTime 6 would be the first Mac OS X > media player to support MPEG-4. > > Currently, only Apple and Microsoft offer Mac OS X media players. But > Microsoft's media player only works as a standalone or with the > Internet Explorer 5.1 browser. Windows Media Player for Mac OS X is > not compatible with rival browsers such as AOL Time Warner's Netscape > 6. > > RealNetworks has committed to releasing a Mac OS X version of its > media player, but it has yet to do so. > > "The ISMA (Internet Streaming Media Alliance) is pleased that > industry support for MPEG-4 remains strong, as is evidenced by > Apple's latest announcement," said ISMA President Tom Jacobs. "The > ISMA membership continues to work toward interoperable approaches for > transporting and viewing rich media, and we believe that MPEG-4 is a > superb content choice. We look forward to MPEG-LA soon publishing > final licensing terms, and the ISMA has high expectations that > amenable terms for all will be reached." > > Tuesday's release of the QuickTime 6 beta could be viewed as a > pre-emptive strike against Microsoft, which is expected this summer > to offer a test version of its next-generation digital media client > and server software, code-named Corona. Microsoft has not yet > committed to supporting MPEG-4, working instead on its own > proprietary codecs and streaming technologies. > > More importantly, Microsoft does not plan to initially offer a Corona > player for the Mac when the technology debuts later this year. > > "We'll focus on other platforms like the Mac primarily to ensure > Windows Media content playback," said Jonathan Usher, director of the > Windows Digital Media Division at Microsoft. "There will not be a > separate Corona player in that time frame." > > Usher said he "can't comment" about whether Microsoft would release a > Corona player for the Mac. "Our focus right now for the Corona time > frame is Windows XP and other versions of Windows." > > News.com's Paul Festa contributed to this report. > > > -- > Regards > Craig Birkmaier > Pcube Labs > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From wjf NetworkXXIII.com Wed Jun 5 14:01:04 2002 From: wjf NetworkXXIII.com (William J. Fulco) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:28 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Apple settles MPEG-4 dispute? In-Reply-To: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF5792@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: Rob, So what's happening here exactly? Apple is saying the "pressure" on MPEG-LA will yield "an acceptable" license or is Apple working out a separate agreement with the 18 patent holders (or with MPEG-LA) on it's own to cover MPEG-4 ? ++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: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org > [snip] > > With respect to this arcticle - I pointed out to Paul that > it wasn't MPEG-4 that proposed licensing terms, but a number > of owners of patents that are essential to MPEG-4's > implementation. > > Rob From rkoenen intertrust.com Wed Jun 5 14:32:26 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:28 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Apple settles MPEG-4 dispute? Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF57A2@exchange.epr.com> Bill, > Rob, > > So what's happening here exactly? Apple is saying the "pressure" on MPEG-LA > will yield "an acceptable" license or is Apple working out a separate > agreement with the 18 patent holders (or with MPEG-LA) on > it's own to cover MPEG-4 ? I neither work for Apple, nor am I involved in the talks that MPEG LA holds with licensors or licensees, but since you are asking me ... the answer, as I understand it, is the first of your options. Pressure will yield (is yielding) an acceptable license. See http://news.com.com/2100-1040-932419.html - quoting: "Jobs says that Apple is close to making a pact with MPEG LA, [...]" There is NO WAY that MPEG LA will cut a deal with Apple that it will not cut with anyone else too. MPEG LA is committed to non-discriminatory licensing, and (most) licensors are *bound* to non-discriminatory licensing through promises they made to ISO during the standardization process. As I understand it, MPEG LA is talking to many potential constomers about the final shape of the license. Apple's move (and Jobs' comments) indicate that the serious concerns that Apple raised a few months back have made way for confidence that things will be resolved. This, in turn, gives me good hope. The only thing that we now require is SPEED. We need to get the license out there and available SOON (as in "NOW"). Rob From wjf NetworkXXIII.com Wed Jun 5 14:50:23 2002 From: wjf NetworkXXIII.com (William J. Fulco) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:28 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Apple settles MPEG-4 dispute? In-Reply-To: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF57A2@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: Rob, Thanks. Got it. I understand about MPEG-LA's requirements... I was under the impression that a firm/licensee could "make their own deal" with the 18 holders outside of the MPEG-LA context if they wanted to - or should I say - are big enough to endure the cost of negotiating 18 agreements. I didn't pick-up Steve's specific comment about dealing with MPEG-LA - guess it just went in one eyeball and came out the other :-) Does your comment "and (most) licensors are *bound* to non-discriminatory licensing through promises they made to ISO during the standardization process." mean that in fact, no one COULD make a deal with the gang-of-18 outside of the terms (equal-to at least) of an MPEG-LA deal? ++Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org > [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Rob Koenen > Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2023 1:32 PM > To: 'William J. Fulco'; discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Apple settles MPEG-4 dispute? > > > Bill, > > > Rob, > > > > So what's happening here exactly? Apple is saying the "pressure" on > MPEG-LA > > will yield "an acceptable" license or is Apple working out a separate > > agreement with the 18 patent holders (or with MPEG-LA) on > > it's own to cover MPEG-4 ? > > I neither work for Apple, nor am I involved in the talks that > MPEG LA holds > with licensors or licensees, but since you are asking me ... the answer, > as I understand it, is the first of your options. Pressure will yield (is > yielding) > an acceptable license. See http://news.com.com/2100-1040-932419.html - > quoting: > "Jobs says that Apple is close to making a pact with MPEG LA, [...]" > > There is NO WAY that MPEG LA will cut a deal with Apple that it will > not cut with anyone else too. MPEG LA is committed to non-discriminatory > licensing, and (most) licensors are *bound* to non-discriminatory > licensing > through promises they made to ISO during the standardization process. > > As I understand it, MPEG LA is talking to many potential constomers > about the final shape of the license. Apple's move (and Jobs' comments) > indicate that the serious concerns that Apple raised a few months back > have made way for confidence that things will be resolved. > > This, in turn, gives me good hope. > > The only thing that we now require is SPEED. We need to get the > license out > there and available SOON (as in "NOW"). > > Rob > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From rkoenen intertrust.com Wed Jun 5 17:10:06 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:28 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Apple settles MPEG-4 dispute? Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF57A9@exchange.epr.com> > Does your comment "and (most) licensors are *bound* to non-discriminatory > licensing through promises they made to ISO during the standardization > process." mean that in fact, no one COULD make a deal with the gang-of-18 > outside of the terms (equal-to at least) of an MPEG-LA deal? No, it doesn't mean that at all. MPEG LA's license will be non-exclusive. Apple and others will still have the freedom to pay visits to the 18 (I believe now 20) licensors and negotiate deals with them individually. These then will individually have to make sure they are non-discriminatory, in however way they want to do that. Rob From dan on2.com Wed Jun 5 20:16:54 2002 From: dan on2.com (Daniel B. Miller) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:28 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Apple settles MPEG-4 dispute? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200206052316.g55NGskH029111@on2.com> well if the patent pool wasn't illegal before, it certainly would be if they started making ad-hoc deals with specific customers prior to finalizing their supposedly fair, non-discriminatory license. Frankly, the language used in these articles is pretty provocative, implying in fact that this is just what's going on. I suspect however it's as Rob says, there are no *formal* talks with specific customers. That would pretty much be shooting themselves in the foot. To put it another way, does Jobs play golf with Larry Horn? ___ Dan Miller (++,) CTO and founder, On2 Technologies On Wed, 5 Jun 2002, William J. Fulco wrote: > Rob, > > Thanks. Got it. I understand about MPEG-LA's requirements... I was under > the impression that a firm/licensee could "make their own deal" with the 18 > holders outside of the MPEG-LA context if they wanted to - or should I say - > are big enough to endure the cost of negotiating 18 agreements. I didn't > pick-up Steve's specific comment about dealing with MPEG-LA - guess it just > went in one eyeball and came out the other :-) > > Does your comment "and (most) licensors are *bound* to non-discriminatory > licensing through promises they made to ISO during the standardization > process." mean that in fact, no one COULD make a deal with the gang-of-18 > outside of the terms (equal-to at least) of an MPEG-LA deal? > > > ++Bill > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org > > [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Rob Koenen > > Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2023 1:32 PM > > To: 'William J. Fulco'; discuss@lists.m4if.org > > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Apple settles MPEG-4 dispute? > > > > > > Bill, > > > > > Rob, > > > > > > So what's happening here exactly? Apple is saying the "pressure" on > > MPEG-LA > > > will yield "an acceptable" license or is Apple working out a separate > > > agreement with the 18 patent holders (or with MPEG-LA) on > > > it's own to cover MPEG-4 ? > > > > I neither work for Apple, nor am I involved in the talks that > > MPEG LA holds > > with licensors or licensees, but since you are asking me ... the answer, > > as I understand it, is the first of your options. Pressure will yield (is > > yielding) > > an acceptable license. See http://news.com.com/2100-1040-932419.html - > > quoting: > > "Jobs says that Apple is close to making a pact with MPEG LA, [...]" > > > > There is NO WAY that MPEG LA will cut a deal with Apple that it will > > not cut with anyone else too. MPEG LA is committed to non-discriminatory > > licensing, and (most) licensors are *bound* to non-discriminatory > > licensing > > through promises they made to ISO during the standardization process. > > > > As I understand it, MPEG LA is talking to many potential constomers > > about the final shape of the license. Apple's move (and Jobs' comments) > > indicate that the serious concerns that Apple raised a few months back > > have made way for confidence that things will be resolved. > > > > This, in turn, gives me good hope. > > > > The only thing that we now require is SPEED. We need to get the > > license out > > there and available SOON (as in "NOW"). > > > > Rob > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 jeffh bisk.com Wed Jun 5 20:57:50 2002 From: jeffh bisk.com (Jeff Handy) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:28 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Apple settles MPEG-4 dispute? Message-ID: <7766C1C51719A44B92C2461F6F0C5A0945C4DE@mail.corp.bisk.com> > Apple and others will still have the freedom > to pay visits to the 18 (I > believe now 20) licensors and negotiate deals with them individually. And then themselves offer to be a patent clearinghouse? (not that you insinuated that, Rob) But, that WOULD be an interesting development. I think it's a simple mistaken extrapolation from a pseudo-informed writer. Either that or someone was misquoted. (that never happens, right? ;-) I just want to start using this stuff once and for all. I just hate playing the waiting game while all of these companies quabble over the licensing details... 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 rkoenen intertrust.com Wed Jun 5 18:11:57 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:28 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Apple settles MPEG-4 dispute? Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF57BB@exchange.epr.com> > > Apple and others will still have the freedom to pay visits to the 18 (I > > believe now 20) licensors and negotiate deals with them individually. > > > And then themselves offer to be a patent clearinghouse? (not that you > insinuated that, Rob) But, that WOULD be an interesting development. If they get sublicensing rights ... why not. Actually, and quite seriously, M4IF has adopted resolutions at multiple meetings that would welcome alternative (Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory) joint licensing schemes for the same essential patents necessary to implement MPEG-4 technology. Rob From jimlongo mac.com Wed Jun 5 22:03:28 2002 From: jimlongo mac.com (jimlongo) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:28 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Apple settles MPEG-4 dispute? Message-ID: <5B46733E-78EA-11D6-80E8-000393080A9C@mac.com> On Wednesday, June 5, 2002, at 07:16 PM, Daniel B. Miller wrote: > well if the patent pool wasn't illegal before, it certainly would be if > they started making ad-hoc deals with specific customers prior to > finalizing their supposedly fair, non-discriminatory license. > > Frankly, the language used in these articles is pretty provocative, > implying in fact that this is just what's going on. I suspect however > it's as Rob says, there are no *formal* talks with specific customers. > That would pretty much be shooting themselves in the foot. > > To put it another way, does Jobs play golf with Larry Horn? I don't know about golf, but the exact same group (MPEG-LA headed by Larry Horn) were the negotiators for the 1394 licence pool (1394-LA) , so I would assume they know and have dealt with each other previously. Jim Longo > > ___ Dan Miller > (++,) CTO and founder, On2 Technologies > > On Wed, 5 Jun 2002, William J. Fulco wrote: > >> Rob, >> >> Thanks. Got it. I understand about MPEG-LA's requirements... I was >> under >> the impression that a firm/licensee could "make their own deal" with >> the 18 >> holders outside of the MPEG-LA context if they wanted to - or should I >> say - >> are big enough to endure the cost of negotiating 18 agreements. I >> didn't >> pick-up Steve's specific comment about dealing with MPEG-LA - guess it >> just >> went in one eyeball and came out the other :-) >> >> Does your comment "and (most) licensors are *bound* to >> non-discriminatory >> licensing through promises they made to ISO during the standardization >> process." mean that in fact, no one COULD make a deal with the >> gang-of-18 >> outside of the terms (equal-to at least) of an MPEG-LA deal? >> >> >> ++Bill >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org >>> [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Rob Koenen >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2023 1:32 PM >>> To: 'William J. Fulco'; discuss@lists.m4if.org >>> Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Apple settles MPEG-4 dispute? >>> >>> >>> Bill, >>> >>>> Rob, >>>> >>>> So what's happening here exactly? Apple is saying the "pressure" on >>> MPEG-LA >>>> will yield "an acceptable" license or is Apple working out a separate >>>> agreement with the 18 patent holders (or with MPEG-LA) on >>>> it's own to cover MPEG-4 ? >>> >>> I neither work for Apple, nor am I involved in the talks that >>> MPEG LA holds >>> with licensors or licensees, but since you are asking me ... the >>> answer, >>> as I understand it, is the first of your options. Pressure will yield >>> (is >>> yielding) >>> an acceptable license. See http://news.com.com/2100-1040-932419.html - >>> quoting: >>> "Jobs says that Apple is close to making a pact with MPEG LA, [...]" >>> >>> There is NO WAY that MPEG LA will cut a deal with Apple that it will >>> not cut with anyone else too. MPEG LA is committed to >>> non-discriminatory >>> licensing, and (most) licensors are *bound* to non-discriminatory >>> licensing >>> through promises they made to ISO during the standardization process. >>> >>> As I understand it, MPEG LA is talking to many potential constomers >>> about the final shape of the license. Apple's move (and Jobs' >>> comments) >>> indicate that the serious concerns that Apple raised a few months back >>> have made way for confidence that things will be resolved. >>> >>> This, in turn, gives me good hope. >>> >>> The only thing that we now require is SPEED. We need to get the >>> license out >>> there and available SOON (as in "NOW"). >>> >>> Rob >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 Jun 5 23:26:22 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:29 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Apple settles MPEG-4 dispute? Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF57C3@exchange.epr.com> This thread is becoming questionable. The fact that people know each other means nothing. To suggest that people cut deals under the table shows (to put it extremely mildly) unfamiliarity with the issues and liabilities at hand. Let's close this thread. Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: jimlongo [mailto:jimlongo@mac.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2023 18:03 > To: Discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] Apple settles MPEG-4 dispute? > > > > On Wednesday, June 5, 2002, at 07:16 PM, Daniel B. Miller wrote: > > > well if the patent pool wasn't illegal before, it certainly > would be if > > they started making ad-hoc deals with specific customers prior to > > finalizing their supposedly fair, non-discriminatory license. > > > > Frankly, the language used in these articles is pretty provocative, > > implying in fact that this is just what's going on. I > suspect however > > it's as Rob says, there are no *formal* talks with specific > customers. > > That would pretty much be shooting themselves in the foot. > > > > To put it another way, does Jobs play golf with Larry Horn? > > I don't know about golf, but the exact same group (MPEG-LA headed by > Larry Horn) were the negotiators for the 1394 licence pool > (1394-LA) , > so I would assume they know and have dealt with each other previously. > > Jim Longo > > > > > > > > ___ Dan Miller > > (++,) CTO and founder, On2 Technologies > > > > On Wed, 5 Jun 2002, William J. Fulco wrote: > > > >> Rob, > >> > >> Thanks. Got it. I understand about MPEG-LA's > requirements... I was > >> under > >> the impression that a firm/licensee could "make their own > deal" with > >> the 18 > >> holders outside of the MPEG-LA context if they wanted to - > or should I > >> say - > >> are big enough to endure the cost of negotiating 18 agreements. I > >> didn't > >> pick-up Steve's specific comment about dealing with > MPEG-LA - guess it > >> just > >> went in one eyeball and came out the other :-) > >> > >> Does your comment "and (most) licensors are *bound* to > >> non-discriminatory > >> licensing through promises they made to ISO during the > standardization > >> process." mean that in fact, no one COULD make a deal with the > >> gang-of-18 > >> outside of the terms (equal-to at least) of an MPEG-LA deal? > >> > >> > >> ++Bill > >> > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org > >>> [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Rob Koenen > >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2023 1:32 PM > >>> To: 'William J. Fulco'; discuss@lists.m4if.org > >>> Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Apple settles MPEG-4 dispute? > >>> > >>> > >>> Bill, > >>> > >>>> Rob, > >>>> > >>>> So what's happening here exactly? Apple is saying the > "pressure" on > >>> MPEG-LA > >>>> will yield "an acceptable" license or is Apple working > out a separate > >>>> agreement with the 18 patent holders (or with MPEG-LA) on > >>>> it's own to cover MPEG-4 ? > >>> > >>> I neither work for Apple, nor am I involved in the talks that > >>> MPEG LA holds > >>> with licensors or licensees, but since you are asking me ... the > >>> answer, > >>> as I understand it, is the first of your options. > Pressure will yield > >>> (is > >>> yielding) > >>> an acceptable license. See > http://news.com.com/2100-1040-932419.html - > >>> quoting: > >>> "Jobs says that Apple is close to making a pact with MPEG > LA, [...]" > >>> > >>> There is NO WAY that MPEG LA will cut a deal with Apple > that it will > >>> not cut with anyone else too. MPEG LA is committed to > >>> non-discriminatory > >>> licensing, and (most) licensors are *bound* to non-discriminatory > >>> licensing > >>> through promises they made to ISO during the > standardization process. > >>> > >>> As I understand it, MPEG LA is talking to many potential > constomers > >>> about the final shape of the license. Apple's move (and Jobs' > >>> comments) > >>> indicate that the serious concerns that Apple raised a > few months back > >>> have made way for confidence that things will be resolved. > >>> > >>> This, in turn, gives me good hope. > >>> > >>> The only thing that we now require is SPEED. We need to get the > >>> license out > >>> there and available SOON (as in "NOW"). > >>> > >>> Rob > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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 > From craig pcube.com Thu Jun 6 12:07:58 2002 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:29 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Apple settles MPEG-4 dispute? In-Reply-To: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF57C3@exchange.epr.com> References: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF57C3@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: At 10:26 PM -0700 6/5/02, Rob Koenen wrote: >This thread is becoming questionable. The fact that people know >each other means nothing. To suggest that people cut deals under >the table shows (to put it extremely mildly) unfamiliarity with >the issues and liabilities at hand. > >Let's close this thread. Not quite yet... Actually Jeff may have raised some interesting points. Apple has a significant pool of intellectual property to use at the bargaining table. It would appear that Apple is very much in the mode of providing the basic version of the QuickTime players free, just as portions of the OS are now Open Source. And I have seen no indication that Apple seeks royalties for the QuickTime file format, which has a great deal of overlap with the the Mpeg-4 File Format. In a very real sense, QuickTime already represents a royalty pool. Because of the plug-in architecture, Apple licenses many technologies for use within the QuickTime Architecture - MPEG-4 is just another set of codecs and tools to be included in this pool. I can easily imagine Apple offering an all encompasing QuickTime license that would include a range of third party IP such as MPEG-4, along with some of the Apple IP incorporated iin QuickTime. -- Regards Craig Birkmaier Pcube Labs From khuber sorenson.com Thu Jun 6 12:24:39 2002 From: khuber sorenson.com (Kris Huber) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:29 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Impact of recent Supreme Court decision on patent rights Message-ID: <70A238C106788B49A1B7B46C050DEDFE228E70@pandora.sorenson.com> A few days ago I noticed that there has been a U.S. Supreme Court decision (http://www.ieeeusa.org/releases/2002/052802pr.html) that the article says impacts 90% of the patents now in force. The article does not elaborate on what impact the "foreseeable-bar" interpretation that was applied will have to these patents, however. I read an article about this in the IEEE Institute on this, but other than that and the article about haven't done any research. From the face of it, however, it seems to me this court decision could have two opposing effects: 1. It could make it harder to get new enforceable patents and harder to design around existing patents. 2. It could cause it to be possible to successfully argue that many existing "incremental" patents (those that are straightforward adaptations of an earlier patent to an unforeseeable-to-most-people new technology) have now become invalid. In this way much of what was considered protected-by-patent IP prior to May 28, 2024 may now be in the public domain (or years closer to coming into the public domain by expiration of the valid patent rights being granted earlier). I think the amazing growth of the internet was probably unforeseeable by most of us. If the patent landscape includes lots of "re-inventions of the wheel", so to speak, but in the "Internet" context, it could be a major effect for them all to be invalidated. If I'm correct that both of these effects are possible (I may misunderstand; I don't have much experience or knowledge of the history of the patent system), I wonder which effect will be the dominant one. Will it have any effect on the validity in the U.S. of patents that MPEG-LA licenses? Also, if such a huge change in the status of IP is possible, isn't that sort of like passing an ex-post-facto law (a law that makes something illegal after the commission of the so-called violation, and allows present punishment for the past violation)? If I remember right, ex-post-facto laws were one of the reasons the colonies that later became the first U.S. states declared independence. Of course, in the U.S. where governing power is separated in several ways, courts don't make laws, but the precedents they set that guide how existing law is interpreted have a very similar effect. Is there any "grandfathering" when changes of interpretation of law occur in the courts (i.e., is the old interpretation maintained for, say, patents older than the ones that were disputed in the particular court case that set the new precedent)? My understanding is that a change in interpretation of law is instantaneous, with no grandfathering other than not requiring repayment of licensing fees that you collected for a patent that is now considered invalid under the new standard for interpretation (that would really be ex-post-facto law enforcement!). I think this is an interesting issue, and would like to understand it better (although I have next to no time to devote to it). Best regards, Kris Huber From MTayer aerocast.com Thu Jun 6 12:17:47 2002 From: MTayer aerocast.com (Marc Tayer) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:29 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Impact of recent Supreme Court decision on pat ent rights Message-ID: The implications of the Supreme Court decision, while important, have probably been exaggerated by both sides. The net result should have insignificant implications for MPEG-4. As long as there are multiple essential MPEG-4 patents owned by multiple companies, we are in the same boat as before, more or less. The case related to a longstanding concept called the Doctrine of Equivalents, which for over 100 years strengthened an inventor's right to sue for patent infringement in the event that the alleged infringer didn't exactly or precisely violate one or more patent claims, but rather infringed in a slightly broader sense (i.e., making a small change or workaround vis a vis the literal claim, but still utilizing the basic invention). Over a year ago, the Federal Appeals Court upset decades of precedent by ruling that Festo Corporation could not sue an alleged infringer because Festo had amended its patent during the patent application process, thereby presumably intentionally and willingly narrowing its claims. Therefore, the court ruled, Festo could not use the Doctrine of Equivalents in its case. This ruling was being interpreted as stripping all patent owners who had amended their applications of the right to sue under the Doctrine of Equivalents. Since the vast majority of patent applications that mature into issued patents do so by an amendment process, as opposed to appealing to the patent office and attempting to get all of the original claims issued, this Appeals Court decision was pretty alarming to inventors. Then, a couple weeks ago, the Supreme Court reversed this Appeals Court ruling. So inventors can use the Doctrine of Equivalents again, even if they amended their patent application. But if they do make such amendements, they will have a more difficult case against the alleged infringer. While issues such as prior art, invalidity, doctrine of equivalents, etc. might effect some subset of the MPEG-4 patents, as a practical matter, since there are so many patents owned by so many different companies, the end result would be more or less the same. -----Original Message----- From: Kris Huber [mailto:khuber@sorenson.com] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2023 10:25 AM To: 'discuss@lists.m4if.org' Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Impact of recent Supreme Court decision on patent rights A few days ago I noticed that there has been a U.S. Supreme Court decision (http://www.ieeeusa.org/releases/2002/052802pr.html) that the article says impacts 90% of the patents now in force. The article does not elaborate on what impact the "foreseeable-bar" interpretation that was applied will have to these patents, however. I read an article about this in the IEEE Institute on this, but other than that and the article about haven't done any research. From the face of it, however, it seems to me this court decision could have two opposing effects: 1. It could make it harder to get new enforceable patents and harder to design around existing patents. 2. It could cause it to be possible to successfully argue that many existing "incremental" patents (those that are straightforward adaptations of an earlier patent to an unforeseeable-to-most-people new technology) have now become invalid. In this way much of what was considered protected-by-patent IP prior to May 28, 2024 may now be in the public domain (or years closer to coming into the public domain by expiration of the valid patent rights being granted earlier). I think the amazing growth of the internet was probably unforeseeable by most of us. If the patent landscape includes lots of "re-inventions of the wheel", so to speak, but in the "Internet" context, it could be a major effect for them all to be invalidated. If I'm correct that both of these effects are possible (I may misunderstand; I don't have much experience or knowledge of the history of the patent system), I wonder which effect will be the dominant one. Will it have any effect on the validity in the U.S. of patents that MPEG-LA licenses? Also, if such a huge change in the status of IP is possible, isn't that sort of like passing an ex-post-facto law (a law that makes something illegal after the commission of the so-called violation, and allows present punishment for the past violation)? If I remember right, ex-post-facto laws were one of the reasons the colonies that later became the first U.S. states declared independence. Of course, in the U.S. where governing power is separated in several ways, courts don't make laws, but the precedents they set that guide how existing law is interpreted have a very similar effect. Is there any "grandfathering" when changes of interpretation of law occur in the courts (i.e., is the old interpretation maintained for, say, patents older than the ones that were disputed in the particular court case that set the new precedent)? My understanding is that a change in interpretation of law is instantaneous, with no grandfathering other than not requiring repayment of licensing fees that you collected for a patent that is now considered invalid under the new standard for interpretation (that would really be ex-post-facto law enforcement!). I think this is an interesting issue, and would like to understand it better (although I have next to no time to devote to it). Best regards, Kris Huber _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From Marcelo.Halpern lw.com Thu Jun 6 12:32:58 2002 From: Marcelo.Halpern lw.com (Marcelo.Halpern@lw.com) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:29 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Impact of recent Supreme Court decision onpat ent rights Message-ID: I agree with Marc - many people have vastly exaggerated the effect of the decision and certainly won't come close to the kind of impact that Kris described at the beginning of this thread. Here is a summary of the decision that was written by one of my colleagues that I think might help to clarify the situation further: The U.S. Supreme Court vacated and remanded the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., which held, inter alia, that when a patent claim is amended during prosecution in order to satisfy the requirements of the Patent Act, prosecution history estoppel bars any claim of equivalence for the element that was amended. In Festo, the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, overruled its holdings in previous cases that stated that prosecution history estoppel constituted a "flexible bar" that foreclosed some, but not all, claims of equivalence. In the Supreme Court opinion, delivered by Justice Kennedy, the Court unanimously held that while prosecution history estoppel may apply to any narrowing amendment made to satisfy the requirements under the Patent Act, such estoppel does not necessarily preclude the patentee from asserting infringement against every equivalent to the amended claim element. Thus, while the Court agreed with the Federal Circuit that prosecution history estoppel applies to any narrowing amendment (including those made to satisfy requirements under 35 U.S.C. 112) and not just those made to overcome prior art, such estoppel does not create a "complete bar" against any assertion of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Instead, a court must consider what equivalents were surrendered by the patentee through the amendment. The patentee bears the burden of showing that the amendment does not surrender the particular equivalent in question. As the author of the amended claim language, the patentee's decision to narrow his claims through amendment may be presumed to be a general disclaimer of the territory between the original claim and the amended claim. However, in cases in which the amendment cannot reasonably be viewed as surrendering a particular equivalent (e.g., where the equivalent was unforeseeable at the time of the application or the rationale underlying the amendment bears but a tangential relation to the equivalent) the patentee can rebut the presumption that prosecution history estoppel bars a finding of equivalence by showing that at the time of the amendment one skilled in the art could not reasonably be expected to have drafted a claim that would have literally encompassed the alleged equivalent. Hope this helps. - Marcelo -----Original Message----- From: Marc Tayer [mailto:MTayer@aerocast.com] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2023 1:18 PM To: 'Kris Huber'; 'discuss@lists.m4if.org' Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Impact of recent Supreme Court decision onpat ent rights The implications of the Supreme Court decision, while important, have probably been exaggerated by both sides. The net result should have insignificant implications for MPEG-4. As long as there are multiple essential MPEG-4 patents owned by multiple companies, we are in the same boat as before, more or less. The case related to a longstanding concept called the Doctrine of Equivalents, which for over 100 years strengthened an inventor's right to sue for patent infringement in the event that the alleged infringer didn't exactly or precisely violate one or more patent claims, but rather infringed in a slightly broader sense (i.e., making a small change or workaround vis a vis the literal claim, but still utilizing the basic invention). Over a year ago, the Federal Appeals Court upset decades of precedent by ruling that Festo Corporation could not sue an alleged infringer because Festo had amended its patent during the patent application process, thereby presumably intentionally and willingly narrowing its claims. Therefore, the court ruled, Festo could not use the Doctrine of Equivalents in its case. This ruling was being interpreted as stripping all patent owners who had amended their applications of the right to sue under the Doctrine of Equivalents. Since the vast majority of patent applications that mature into issued patents do so by an amendment process, as opposed to appealing to the patent office and attempting to get all of the original claims issued, this Appeals Court decision was pretty alarming to inventors. Then, a couple weeks ago, the Supreme Court reversed this Appeals Court ruling. So inventors can use the Doctrine of Equivalents again, even if they amended their patent application. But if they do make such amendements, they will have a more difficult case against the alleged infringer. While issues such as prior art, invalidity, doctrine of equivalents, etc. might effect some subset of the MPEG-4 patents, as a practical matter, since there are so many patents owned by so many different companies, the end result would be more or less the same. -----Original Message----- From: Kris Huber [mailto:khuber@sorenson.com] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2023 10:25 AM To: 'discuss@lists.m4if.org' Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Impact of recent Supreme Court decision on patent rights A few days ago I noticed that there has been a U.S. Supreme Court decision (http://www.ieeeusa.org/releases/2002/052802pr.html) that the article says impacts 90% of the patents now in force. The article does not elaborate on what impact the "foreseeable-bar" interpretation that was applied will have to these patents, however. I read an article about this in the IEEE Institute on this, but other than that and the article about haven't done any research. From the face of it, however, it seems to me this court decision could have two opposing effects: 1. It could make it harder to get new enforceable patents and harder to design around existing patents. 2. It could cause it to be possible to successfully argue that many existing "incremental" patents (those that are straightforward adaptations of an earlier patent to an unforeseeable-to-most-people new technology) have now become invalid. In this way much of what was considered protected-by-patent IP prior to May 28, 2024 may now be in the public domain (or years closer to coming into the public domain by expiration of the valid patent rights being granted earlier). I think the amazing growth of the internet was probably unforeseeable by most of us. If the patent landscape includes lots of "re-inventions of the wheel", so to speak, but in the "Internet" context, it could be a major effect for them all to be invalidated. If I'm correct that both of these effects are possible (I may misunderstand; I don't have much experience or knowledge of the history of the patent system), I wonder which effect will be the dominant one. Will it have any effect on the validity in the U.S. of patents that MPEG-LA licenses? Also, if such a huge change in the status of IP is possible, isn't that sort of like passing an ex-post-facto law (a law that makes something illegal after the commission of the so-called violation, and allows present punishment for the past violation)? If I remember right, ex-post-facto laws were one of the reasons the colonies that later became the first U.S. states declared independence. Of course, in the U.S. where governing power is separated in several ways, courts don't make laws, but the precedents they set that guide how existing law is interpreted have a very similar effect. Is there any "grandfathering" when changes of interpretation of law occur in the courts (i.e., is the old interpretation maintained for, say, patents older than the ones that were disputed in the particular court case that set the new precedent)? My understanding is that a change in interpretation of law is instantaneous, with no grandfathering other than not requiring repayment of licensing fees that you collected for a patent that is now considered invalid under the new standard for interpretation (that would really be ex-post-facto law enforcement!). I think this is an interesting issue, and would like to understand it better (although I have next to no time to devote to it). Best regards, Kris Huber _______________________________________________ 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 This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. From ben interframemedia.com Thu Jun 6 12:40:58 2002 From: ben interframemedia.com (Ben Waggoner) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:29 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Apple settles MPEG-4 dispute? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Craig, Indeed. For example, QT6 preview includes AAC-LC encoding. That may make just using QuickTime for AAC encoding a very compelling alternative to licensing the rather expensive codec directly. Ben Waggoner Interframe Media Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding Cleaner Tutorial: www.saferseas.com/navseries/adclean.html Stanford class: www.digitalmediaacademy.org/courses/videocompress.html Preorder my Book: www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/157820111X/benwaggoner-20 on 6/6/02 8:07 AM, Craig Birkmaier at craig@pcube.com wrote: > In a very real sense, QuickTime already represents a royalty pool. > Because of the plug-in architecture, Apple licenses many technologies > for use within the QuickTime Architecture - MPEG-4 is just another > set of codecs and tools to be included in this pool. I can easily > imagine Apple offering an all encompasing QuickTime license that > would include a range of third party IP such as MPEG-4, along with > some of the Apple IP incorporated iin QuickTime. From wjf NetworkXXIII.com Thu Jun 6 12:58:39 2002 From: wjf NetworkXXIII.com (William J. Fulco) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:29 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Impact of recent Supreme Court decision on patent rights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kris, As I understand it - what happened was the Appeals court upset the cart big time and the Supremes put it back - almost the way it was.. As Marc noted: > Then, a couple weeks ago, the Supreme Court reversed this Appeals > Court ruling. So inventors can use the Doctrine of Equivalents > again, even if they amended their patent application. But if they > do make such amendements, they will have a more difficult case > against the alleged infringer. What the Supremes did was overturn the Appeals "absolute bar" to amendments - there is now no ABSOLUTE bar on amendments causing you not to be able to sue for an "equivalent" device... However, the Supremes also rejected Festo's attempt to create a "Flexible bar" that would have allowed the courts to decide on a case-by-case basis at the trial (as I understand what they wanted). This would have created a BIG mess. What the Supremes decided was they liked what the IEEE (USA) proposed - a "Foreseeable bar" on amendments. What this means is that the limiting actions of an amendment do not prevent you from suing an infringing party UNLESS the limiting actions of the amendment could FORSEEABLY have excluded the infringing device by someone generally skilled in the art at the time. In short - when you file a amendments to limit your patent's breadth (so you can get the USPTO to award the patent) ... if these limiting amendments could have been foreseen at the time to excluded the device you now claim infringes - then you can't claim "the doctrine of equivalents" applies. Say you patent a wheelbarrow as "any device with wheels and a handle to carry heavy loads" - and the patent office says - WAY too broad, we're not going to issue. So you amend the application and say "a device with ONE wheel and a handle to carry heavy loads" and you get the patent. Then along comes FredCo - and they build a device with TWO wheels and a handle - and you try to sue under "the doctrine of equivalents" - saying their wheelbarrow infringes. FredCo can say under this new ruling - NOPE - your amendment restricted the patent because anyone skilled in the arts could have foreseen a 2-wheel version as a possibility - and your amendment specifically restricted your patent application to ONE wheel. Therefore, your patent meant ONE WHEEL CARRYING DEVICE - not the general case of an ANY NUMBER OF WHEELS CARRYING DEVICE... Basically the ruling is a mixed bag - it's not back to the old way ("equivalent" devices are covered regardless of amendments to patent application) but it's not as bad as the way the Appeals Court had made it (any limiting amendment kills equivalence) But then again, I'm not a patent lawyer - so this description and all its equivalents - come with appropriate caveats. ++Bill --------------------- William J. Fulco wjf@NetworkXXIII.com 310-927-4263 (Cell) Ne cede malis sed contra audientor ito! From rkoenen intertrust.com Thu Jun 6 13:03:02 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:29 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Apple settles MPEG-4 dispute? Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF57EB@exchange.epr.com> > >Let's close this thread. > > Not quite yet... Well, You are really addressing something else, that's fine. I am not sure what you mean though. > In a very real sense, QuickTime already represents a royalty pool. Yes - and so do your DVD player product, your cell phone product, your Real player, your computer, your operating system, and on and on. What am I missing? Apple providing a license to QT (and everyting it includes) to its end-users is the same what any player provider does, including Real, MSFT, Envivio etc. Note that this is not the same as licensors providing Apple with a "make and sell" -- or "give-away" -- license. I do not envisage Apple or anyone in a comparable position to give or sell sublicenses, allowing others to create (MPEG-4 or like) technology and selling that. Also note that end-users will never directly pay license fees, and hardly ever pass them on directly. There is a certain cost of creating a product, and there are ways to making money with it. Don't get the two confused. Best, Rob > Actually Jeff may have raised some interesting points. Apple has a > significant pool of intellectual property to use at the bargaining > table. It would appear that Apple is very much in the mode of > providing the basic version of the QuickTime players free, just as > portions of the OS are now Open Source. And I have seen no > indication that Apple seeks royalties for the QuickTime file format, > which has a great deal of overlap with the the Mpeg-4 File Format. > > In a very real sense, QuickTime already represents a royalty pool. > Because of the plug-in architecture, Apple licenses many technologies > for use within the QuickTime Architecture - MPEG-4 is just another > set of codecs and tools to be included in this pool. I can easily > imagine Apple offering an all encompasing QuickTime license that > would include a range of third party IP such as MPEG-4, along with > some of the Apple IP incorporated iin QuickTime. > -- > Regards > Craig Birkmaier > Pcube Labs > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From rkoenen intertrust.com Thu Jun 6 13:03:56 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:29 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Apple settles MPEG-4 dispute? Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF57EC@exchange.epr.com> With all respect - this argument is based on a misconception. No end-user will ever license the codec directly. See my previous mail. Best, Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Waggoner [mailto:ben@interframemedia.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2023 11:41 > To: Discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] Apple settles MPEG-4 dispute? > > > Craig, > > Indeed. For example, QT6 preview includes AAC-LC > encoding. That may > make just using QuickTime for AAC encoding a very compelling > alternative to > licensing the rather expensive codec directly. > > > Ben Waggoner > Interframe Media > Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding > > Cleaner Tutorial: www.saferseas.com/navseries/adclean.html > Stanford class: > www.digitalmediaacademy.org/courses/videocompress.html > Preorder my Book: > www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/157820111X/benwaggoner-20 > > > > on 6/6/02 8:07 AM, Craig Birkmaier at craig@pcube.com wrote: > > > In a very real sense, QuickTime already represents a royalty pool. > > Because of the plug-in architecture, Apple licenses many > technologies > > for use within the QuickTime Architecture - MPEG-4 is just another > > set of codecs and tools to be included in this pool. I can easily > > imagine Apple offering an all encompasing QuickTime license that > > would include a range of third party IP such as MPEG-4, along with > > some of the Apple IP incorporated iin QuickTime. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From ben interframemedia.com Thu Jun 6 13:15:39 2002 From: ben interframemedia.com (Ben Waggoner) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:29 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Apple settles MPEG-4 dispute? In-Reply-To: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF57EC@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: Rob, I was actually referring to platform vendors. So, if a company with a MPEG-4 codec wanted to support AAC encoding, they could use their own MPEG-4 video with the QuickTime AAC to build a product, instead of licensing the AAC directly. Ben Waggoner Interframe Media Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding Cleaner Tutorial: www.saferseas.com/navseries/adclean.html Stanford class: www.digitalmediaacademy.org/courses/videocompress.html Preorder my Book: www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/157820111X/benwaggoner-20 on 6/6/02 12:03 PM, Rob Koenen at rkoenen@intertrust.com wrote: > With all respect - this argument is based on a misconception. > No end-user will ever license the codec directly. > See my previous mail. From rkoenen intertrust.com Thu Jun 6 17:20:06 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:29 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Apple settles MPEG-4 dispute? Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF57F2@exchange.epr.com> Got it. It depends on the individual products' license and how you structure this. Many (most) products cannot be resold / redistributed. Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Waggoner [mailto:ben@interframemedia.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2023 12:16 > To: Discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] Apple settles MPEG-4 dispute? > > > Rob, > > I was actually referring to platform vendors. So, if a > company with a > MPEG-4 codec wanted to support AAC encoding, they could use > their own MPEG-4 > video with the QuickTime AAC to build a product, instead of > licensing the > AAC directly. > > > Ben Waggoner > Interframe Media > Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding > > Cleaner Tutorial: www.saferseas.com/navseries/adclean.html > Stanford class: > www.digitalmediaacademy.org/courses/videocompress.html > Preorder my Book: > www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/157820111X/benwaggoner-20 > > > > > on 6/6/02 12:03 PM, Rob Koenen at rkoenen@intertrust.com wrote: > > > With all respect - this argument is based on a misconception. > > No end-user will ever license the codec directly. > > See my previous mail. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From shravan784u yahoo.com Fri Jun 14 00:39:28 2002 From: shravan784u yahoo.com (Shravan Kumar) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:29 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Help wanted ***** Message-ID: <20020614063928.61416.qmail@web20106.mail.yahoo.com> Hi Everybody, I'm Shravan from India. I need to get the performance and complexity analysis of a mpeg4 systems decoder(pls rem this is systems not video or audio) performance in terms of MIPS, RAM and ROM requirements. Will I be able to run the decoder code in ARM7 or if ARM9 is required. Thanx in advance Shravan __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From rkoenen intertrust.com Fri Jun 14 00:48:08 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:30 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Help wanted ***** Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF5965@exchange.epr.com> This is discussion for the technotes list (where you posted as well) Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Shravan Kumar [mailto:shravan784u@yahoo.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2023 23:39 > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Help wanted ***** > > > Hi Everybody, > I'm Shravan from India. I need to get the performance > and complexity analysis of a mpeg4 systems > decoder(pls rem this is systems not video or audio) > performance in terms of MIPS, RAM and ROM > requirements. > Will I be able to run the decoder code in ARM7 or > if ARM9 is required. > > Thanx in advance > Shravan > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup > http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From erict3 hthk.com Fri Jun 14 23:21:49 2002 From: erict3 hthk.com (Eric Tse) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:30 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] ISO, ISMA, 3GPP standards. Message-ID: <013e01c213ae$d35697e0$2e03f80a@erictse> Dear All, Hi, I got a hand on the ISO (14496) MPEG4 standard and understand that 3GPP MPEG4 standard is based on what ISO specified. However, I cannot see any correlation on ISMA MPEG4 standard to other MPEG4 standards. Could anyone explain a bit on ISMA standard to me please? Thanks a lot! cheers, Eric -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020614/15b65720/attachment.html From rkoenen intertrust.com Fri Jun 14 08:54:39 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:30 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] ISO, ISMA, 3GPP standards. Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF5971@exchange.epr.com> ISMA does not have/set/include an MPEG-4 standard, but makes clear reference to Profiles and Levels from the MPEG-4 Visual and MPEG-4 Audio standards. Does that answer your question? Rob -----Original Message----- From: Eric Tse [mailto:erict3@hthk.com] Sent: Friday, June 14, 2023 7:22 To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: [M4IF Discuss] ISO, ISMA, 3GPP standards. Dear All, Hi, I got a hand on the ISO (14496) MPEG4 standard and understand that 3GPP MPEG4 standard is based on what ISO specified. However, I cannot see any correlation on ISMA MPEG4 standard to other MPEG4 standards. Could anyone explain a bit on ISMA standard to me please? Thanks a lot! cheers, Eric -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020614/0c22b336/attachment.html From rkoenen intertrust.com Fri Jun 14 08:55:30 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:30 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] ISO, ISMA, 3GPP standards. Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF5972@exchange.epr.com> ps: this is a really a discussion for the Technotes list. Thanks, Rob -----Original Message----- From: Rob Koenen Sent: Friday, June 14, 2023 7:55 To: 'Eric Tse'; discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] ISO, ISMA, 3GPP standards. ISMA does not have/set/include an MPEG-4 standard, but makes clear reference to Profiles and Levels from the MPEG-4 Visual and MPEG-4 Audio standards. Does that answer your question? Rob -----Original Message----- From: Eric Tse [mailto:erict3@hthk.com] Sent: Friday, June 14, 2023 7:22 To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: [M4IF Discuss] ISO, ISMA, 3GPP standards. Dear All, Hi, I got a hand on the ISO (14496) MPEG4 standard and understand that 3GPP MPEG4 standard is based on what ISO specified. However, I cannot see any correlation on ISMA MPEG4 standard to other MPEG4 standards. Could anyone explain a bit on ISMA standard to me please? Thanks a lot! cheers, Eric -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020614/2f264f1e/attachment.html From Robert.Armitano netapp.com Fri Jun 14 09:52:11 2002 From: Robert.Armitano netapp.com (Armitano, Robert) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:30 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] ISO, ISMA, 3GPP standards. Message-ID: <6440EA1A6AA1D5118C6900902745938E0597E3CB@black.eng.netapp.com> Eric: ISMA defines the streaming of rich multimedia and is not necessarily tied to MPEG. Of course the current standard is based on MPEG-4 and RTSP. For more information refer to http://www.isma.tv/ . Take care, -Robbie >From The Website To accelerate the adoption of open standards for streaming rich media - video, audio, and associated data - over the Internet Just as the adoption of standard mark-up languages has fueled innovation and the explosive use of today's World Wide Web, the goal of Internet Streaming Media Alliance is to accomplish the same for the next wave of rich Internet content, streaming video and audio. The Alliance believes that in creating an interoperable approach for transporting and viewing streaming media, content creators, product developers and service providers will have easier access to the expanding commercial and consumer markets for streaming media services. To date, the prohibitive costs associated with rolling out streaming video services that support all current, disparate formats has kept many potential service providers and other adopters from taking full advantage of existing market opportunities. The emerging class of Internet appliances stands to benefit from a single standard as these devices often cannot afford to have multiple streaming media players installed to view differently formatted ! video content from the web. Standards for many of the fundamental pieces needed for a streaming rich media over IP solution do exist. The ISMA adopts parts or all of those existing standards and contributes to those still in development in order to complete, publish and promote a systemic, end-to-end specifications that enables cross-platform and multi-vendor interoperability. The first specification from the ISMA defines an implementation agreement for streaming MPEG-4 video and audio over IP networks. The Alliance!|s ongoing work to augment the specifications will include adopting methods for digital rights management, reliable quality of service as well as other relevant technologies. -----Original Message----- From: Eric Tse [mailto:erict3@hthk.com] Sent: Friday, June 14, 2023 7:22 AM To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: [M4IF Discuss] ISO, ISMA, 3GPP standards. Dear All, Hi, I got a hand on the ISO (14496) MPEG4 standard and understand that 3GPP MPEG4 standard is based on what ISO specified. However, I cannot see any correlation on ISMA MPEG4 standard to other MPEG4 standards. Could anyone explain a bit on ISMA standard to me please? Thanks a lot! cheers, Eric -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020614/58a5cfa1/attachment.html From manystreamspk yahoo.com Fri Jun 14 14:51:13 2002 From: manystreamspk yahoo.com (Pradeep Kumar) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:30 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Forming a MPEG 4 Testing Community : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MPEG4TESTERS/ Message-ID: <20020614205113.45340.qmail@web21108.mail.yahoo.com> Please join this community if you are into :- - Interoperability testing - Writing and executing test plans for MPEG 4 software / appliance testing - QA Tester http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MPEG4TESTERS/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From olivier.avaro rd.francetelecom.com Mon Jun 17 16:31:30 2002 From: olivier.avaro rd.francetelecom.com (AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/REN) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:30 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] ISO, ISMA, 3GPP standards. Message-ID: <571B06D35309794BA9204B5A090CC10196DAF5@lanmhs50.rd.francetelecom.fr> Skipped content of type multipart/alternativeFrom D.Winne bristol.ac.uk Wed Jun 26 17:38:07 2002 From: D.Winne bristol.ac.uk (DA Winne, Electrical & Electronic Engineering) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:30 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] average quantization calculation (nQMB) Message-ID: Hi, Why is the 'nQMB' variable updated (increased by 2 times unity) twice when you encode a MB as intra in a P or B-frame? 'nQMB' counts (I think) the number of quantized macroblocks in a frame. Usually this is increased by unity when a MB is encoded as 'Inter' or 'Inter4V' so now why is it updated by 2 when it is encoded as 'Intra' in a P or B-frame. { codeMBTextureHeadOfPVOP in \sys\encoder\mbenc.cpp line 846 codeMBTextureHeadOfBVOP in \sys\encoder\mbenc.cpp line 1057 quantizeTextureIntraMB in \sys\encoder\mbenc.cpp line 1323 } Hoping for a fruitfull answer, Dominique ---------------------- D.Winne@bristol.ac.uk From jeffh bisk.com Wed Jun 26 22:57:53 2002 From: jeffh bisk.com (Jeff Handy) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:30 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] WEMP Message-ID: <7766C1C51719A44B92C2461F6F0C5A0937672B@mail.corp.bisk.com> 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 From jose alvear.com Wed Jun 26 20:50:13 2002 From: jose alvear.com (Jose Alvear) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:30 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] WEMP In-Reply-To: <7766C1C51719A44B92C2461F6F0C5A0937672B@mail.corp.bisk.com> Message-ID: Yeah, Sigma Designs announced an MPEG-4 codec that people can download today. It's not up on the site, yet, but the company said they were still working on it. It may take them until tomorrow morning to put it up. See the PR at: http://www.sigmadesigns.com/news/press_releases/020626.htm Jose Alvear jose@alvear.com www.streamingindustrynews.com