[M4IF Discuss] Apple settles MPEG-4 dispute?

[Rob Koenen]

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
>