[M4IF Discuss] Apple settles MPEG-4 dispute?

[jimlongo]

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
>