[M4IF Discuss] Apple settles MPEG-4 dispute?

[Daniel B. Miller]

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
>