From ramizer wmr.com Thu May 2 17:06:36 2002 From: ramizer wmr.com (richard mizer) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:18 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Re: [M4IF News] To those concerned about MPEG-4 Licensing ... References: Message-ID: <3CD1D487.47A63672@wmr.com> All I know is that in my working on an almost daily basis with the Hollywood Studios on compression for Digital Cinema, MPEG-4 has "shot itself in the foot" by the licensing terms that it has proposed. A formal statement went from SMPTE to MPEG, the contents of which can most easily be summarized by the simple statement that "no compression algorithm that includes usage based license fees will be considered for digital cinema". Disclaimer: These are my own words, and not a public SMPTE position, but I believe I accurately reflect the user sentiment in the Digital Cinema community who are members of SMPTE. The studios consider encoder and decoder fees reasonable and non-discriminatory, and with the price of Digital Cinema encoders and decoders likely to be in the tens of thousands of dollars, particularly the encoders, the digital cinema market could absorb very high one time hardware licensing fees. Chiariglione Leonardo wrote: > >As everyone on this list knows, many concerns have been voiced over > licensing of, notably, MPEG-4 Video. > > I am not voicing concern over the specific terms of the announced, but > unconfirmed, MPEG-4 Video licensing. I am just reiterating what I said > one year ago in San Jose at the M4IF meeting: if there is no way to get > an MPEG-4 license, this is not fair and not reasonable (I do not know if > it is discriminatory). Therefore such an ISO standard cannot be retained > if normal people cannot get a license to use it. > If the only answer for people wishing to use the standard, 3.5 years > after it was approved, is that "the process is advancing" (thak you for > informing us of this, we thought it was moving backwards) and that there > are "hopes to have a further > > announcement in the near future" (thank > you very much for your kind commitment), either we are dealing with too > smart or too dull people. I, as the average subscriber to this list, am > neither, but I know that, with such an attitude, there is no prospect to > use the standard before the next ice age. > One suggestion could be that the people working on MPEG-4 licensing > reduce their engagements on the golf courses and turn a benevolent eye > to such worldly matters as giving a chance to people who have believed > in and supported a fair process, to be able to use its results. But, > maybe, this is asking too much. > Leonardo > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Koenen [mailto:rkoenen@intertrust.com] > Sent: 2002 maggio 01 mercoled? 01:40 > To: M4IF news (E-mail) > Subject: [M4IF News] To those concerned about MPEG-4 Licensing > ... > > M4IF watchers, > > Coming Friday, May 3rd, M4IF is having a special meeting on MPEG-4 > licensing. This meeting will be attended by both potential licensees and > licensors. No decisions on licensing will be taken (M4IF cannot do that) > but the meeting will provide valuable input for the licensors to take > into account. > As everyone on this list knows, many concerns have been voiced over > licensing of, notably, MPEG-4 Video. > Many of these concerns have been brought to the awareness of the > licensors, usually through MPEGLA. Unfortunately, not all concerned > parties have made their opinions known. Some of you have just moved on > to other technologies. Because the licensors and MPEGLA *ARE* > listening, it is crucial that your voices be heard. > THIS IS perhaps YOUR LAST CHANCE to still voice concerns. If you want to > use MPEG-4 technology, but have an issue with the structure of the > license as it has been announced, then please let me know AS SOON AS > POSSIBLE, but Thursday at the latest. > Let me know on behalf of whom you are speaking and if your name can be > used, or if you want to be 'anonimized'. > I will bring all constructive input to the attention of the meeting, > including the licensors and their representatives. > Kind Regards, > > Rob Koenen > President, M4IF > > ps: please do not reply to the list. A summary of all input will be > provided, as well as a public report on the result of the meeting. > _______________________________________________ > News mailing list > News@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/news > > _______________________________________________ > News mailing list > News@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/news From crohas archos.com Fri May 3 09:49:00 2002 From: crohas archos.com (Henri Crohas) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:18 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Re: [M4IF News] To those concerned about MPEG-4 Licensing ... References: Message-ID: <00dd01c1f26e$ca040530$0100a8c0@archosv1vi5m3t> I fully support this statement even if my opinion probebly does not weigh much in this debate. Best regards, Henri Crohas, CEO ARCHOS 12, rue Amp?re 91430 IGNY - FRANCE Tel: +33 1 69 33 16 90 Fax: +33 1 69 33 16 99 www.archos.com crohas@archos.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Chiariglione Leonardo To: Rob Koenen ; M4IF news (E-mail) Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2024 11:14 PM Subject: RE: [M4IF News] To those concerned about MPEG-4 Licensing ... >As everyone on this list knows, many concerns have been voiced over licensing of, notably, MPEG-4 Video. I am not voicing concern over the specific terms of the announced, but unconfirmed, MPEG-4 Video licensing. I am just reiterating what I said one year ago in San Jose at the M4IF meeting: if there is no way to get an MPEG-4 license, this is not fair and not reasonable (I do not know if it is discriminatory). Therefore such an ISO standard cannot be retained if normal people cannot get a license to use it. If the only answer for people wishing to use the standard, 3.5 years after it was approved, is that "the process is advancing" (thak you for informing us of this, we thought it was moving backwards) and that there are "hopes to have a further > > announcement in the near future" (thank you very much for your kind commitment), either we are dealing with too smart or too dull people. I, as the average subscriber to this list, am neither, but I know that, with such an attitude, there is no prospect to use the standard before the next ice age. One suggestion could be that the people working on MPEG-4 licensing reduce their engagements on the golf courses and turn a benevolent eye to such worldly matters as giving a chance to people who have believed in and supported a fair process, to be able to use its results. But, maybe, this is asking too much. Leonardo -----Original Message----- From: Rob Koenen [mailto:rkoenen@intertrust.com] Sent: 2002 maggio 01 mercoled? 01:40 To: M4IF news (E-mail) Subject: [M4IF News] To those concerned about MPEG-4 Licensing ... M4IF watchers, Coming Friday, May 3rd, M4IF is having a special meeting on MPEG-4 licensing. This meeting will be attended by both potential licensees and licensors. No decisions on licensing will be taken (M4IF cannot do that) but the meeting will provide valuable input for the licensors to take into account. As everyone on this list knows, many concerns have been voiced over licensing of, notably, MPEG-4 Video. Many of these concerns have been brought to the awareness of the licensors, usually through MPEGLA. Unfortunately, not all concerned parties have made their opinions known. Some of you have just moved on to other technologies. Because the licensors and MPEGLA *ARE* listening, it is crucial that your voices be heard. THIS IS perhaps YOUR LAST CHANCE to still voice concerns. If you want to use MPEG-4 technology, but have an issue with the structure of the license as it has been announced, then please let me know AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, but Thursday at the latest. Let me know on behalf of whom you are speaking and if your name can be used, or if you want to be 'anonimized'. I will bring all constructive input to the attention of the meeting, including the licensors and their representatives. Kind Regards, Rob Koenen President, M4IF ps: please do not reply to the list. A summary of all input will be provided, as well as a public report on the result of the meeting. _______________________________________________ News mailing list News@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/news _______________________________________________ News mailing list News@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/news -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020503/c53147ed/attachment.html From eamon.otuathail clipcode.com Fri May 3 11:57:47 2002 From: eamon.otuathail clipcode.com (Eamon O'Tuathail) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:18 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] To those concerned about MPEG-4 Licensing ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c1f288$fc24aaa0$56c8fea9@central> I totally agree with this. Someone should remind the licensors behind MPEGLA that it is not a race to see who is slowest to market with modern streaming video products, but who is the fastest. Is it too much to ask that they get their act together and that licensing be fully sorted out by the end of this month? While MPEG4 is waiting for this mess to be sorted (and it is a mess), other competing solutions are racing ahead - the licensors should be reminded that although MPEG4 is a standard, that certainly does not mean it will automatically be accepted when (if?) it arrives. If other solutions are better, cheaper (no ridiculous royalties) and already widely distributed, then a very very very late MEPG 4 will be ignored (and that means zero royalties for the licensors). I would also suggest that future MPEG standards be designed so that they are not dependent on royalty-bearing patents. I know this is particular difficult in the audiovisual field, but with the alternative - the current situation - we have nothing shipping. Eamon O'Tuathail Clipcode.com -----Original Message----- From: news-admin@lists.m4if.org [mailto:news-admin@lists.m4if.org] On Behalf Of Chiariglione Leonardo Sent: 02 May 2024 22:15 To: Rob Koenen; M4IF news (E-mail) Subject: RE: [M4IF News] To those concerned about MPEG-4 Licensing ... >As everyone on this list knows, many concerns have been voiced over licensing of, notably, MPEG-4 Video. I am not voicing concern over the specific terms of the announced, but unconfirmed, MPEG-4 Video licensing. I am just reiterating what I said one year ago in San Jose at the M4IF meeting: if there is no way to get an MPEG-4 license, this is not fair and not reasonable (I do not know if it is discriminatory). Therefore such an ISO standard cannot be retained if normal people cannot get a license to use it. If the only answer for people wishing to use the standard, 3.5 years after it was approved, is that "the process is advancing" (thak you for informing us of this, we thought it was moving backwards) and that there are "hopes to have a further > > announcement in the near future" (thank you very much for your kind commitment), either we are dealing with too smart or too dull people. I, as the average subscriber to this list, am neither, but I know that, with such an attitude, there is no prospect to use the standard before the next ice age. One suggestion could be that the people working on MPEG-4 licensing reduce their engagements on the golf courses and turn a benevolent eye to such worldly matters as giving a chance to people who have believed in and supported a fair process, to be able to use its results. But, maybe, this is asking too much. Leonardo From igino.manfre shs.it Fri May 3 17:11:49 2002 From: igino.manfre shs.it (Igino Manfre) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:18 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] To those concerned about MPEG-4 Licensing ... Message-ID: <00af01c1f2ac$77c9dfe0$d2050dac@caronte> The words of Leonardo Chiariglione have been great. The replay of Richard Mizer are also terribly right. But whoever is afraid of this situation is perfectly right. I would simply replay the mail I sent to this newsgroup on february 1st, when the MPEGLA shoot on our feet. Bye, Gino ----- Original Message ----- From: "Igino Manfre'" To: Sent: Friday, February 01, 2024 7:12 PM Subject: 2 cent per hour with no limit I've got the news of MPEGLA as a joke. Is it ? If it is not is dramatic. Let's think it's not. Anyone has the right to get from his invention a proper fee, but this is "out of time". Trying to realize money "now" in this way is a dirty suicide of the entire technology, with the overall result to istigate to the "crime". Do we need to put a taxameter on the pc ? Can you imagine a royalty on internet usage ? Who can put more money on a "free" parallel technology can easily win this fightless match. Who ? ----------------------------- Igino Manfre' - igino.manfre@shs.it SHS Multimedia - http://www.shs.it Rome Branch Office 60, Via Alessandro De Stefani I 00137 ROMA - ITALY Tel. (+39) 06.820805.317 Fax (+39) 06.82003157 Mobile (+39) 3480159049 From singer apple.com Fri May 3 11:00:13 2002 From: singer apple.com (Dave Singer) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:19 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] To those concerned about MPEG-4 Licensing ... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is very much a personal suggestion and observation, as I am neither a patent lawyer nor an official representative of my company on patent and license issues, just a frustrated engineer... Perhaps we should consider insisting that the license terms be available before a standard is finalized? That would mean this agonizing delay would be avoided in future. We have standards that ask for a royalty-free statement before the standard is finalized, so the concept of asking for terms earlier is not out of the question. The absence of license terms at a certain stage (CD?) would put the submitted technology in peril of removal from the specification. At 23:14 +0200 5/2/02, Chiariglione Leonardo wrote: > >As everyone on this list knows, many concerns have been voiced over >licensing of, notably, MPEG-4 Video. > >I am not voicing concern over the specific terms of the announced, but >unconfirmed, MPEG-4 Video licensing. I am just reiterating what I said >one year ago in San Jose at the M4IF meeting: if there is no way to get >an MPEG-4 license, this is not fair and not reasonable (I do not know if >it is discriminatory). Therefore such an ISO standard cannot be retained >if normal people cannot get a license to use it. >If the only answer for people wishing to use the standard, 3.5 years >after it was approved, is that "the process is advancing" (thak you for >informing us of this, we thought it was moving backwards) and that there >are "hopes to have a further > > announcement in the near future" (thank >you very much for your kind commitment), either we are dealing with too >smart or too dull people. I, as the average subscriber to this list, am >neither, but I know that, with such an attitude, there is no prospect to >use the standard before the next ice age. >One suggestion could be that the people working on MPEG-4 licensing >reduce their engagements on the golf courses and turn a benevolent eye >to such worldly matters as giving a chance to people who have believed >in and supported a fair process, to be able to use its results. But, >maybe, this is asking too much. >Leonardo > > > -----Original Message----- >From: Rob Koenen [mailto:rkoenen@intertrust.com] >Sent: 2002 maggio 01 mercoled? 01:40 >To: M4IF news (E-mail) >Subject: [M4IF News] To those concerned about MPEG-4 Licensing >... > >M4IF watchers, > >Coming Friday, May 3rd, M4IF is having a special meeting on MPEG-4 >licensing. This meeting will be attended by both potential licensees and >licensors. No decisions on licensing will be taken (M4IF cannot do that) >but the meeting will provide valuable input for the licensors to take >into account. >As everyone on this list knows, many concerns have been voiced over >licensing of, notably, MPEG-4 Video. >Many of these concerns have been brought to the awareness of the >licensors, usually through MPEGLA. Unfortunately, not all concerned >parties have made their opinions known. Some of you have just moved on >to other technologies. Because the licensors and MPEGLA *ARE* >listening, it is crucial that your voices be heard. >THIS IS perhaps YOUR LAST CHANCE to still voice concerns. If you want to >use MPEG-4 technology, but have an issue with the structure of the >license as it has been announced, then please let me know AS SOON AS >POSSIBLE, but Thursday at the latest. >Let me know on behalf of whom you are speaking and if your name can be >used, or if you want to be 'anonimized'. >I will bring all constructive input to the attention of the meeting, >including the licensors and their representatives. >Kind Regards, > >Rob Koenen >President, M4IF > >ps: please do not reply to the list. A summary of all input will be >provided, as well as a public report on the result of the meeting. >_______________________________________________ >News mailing list >News@lists.m4if.org >http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/news > > >_______________________________________________ >News mailing list >News@lists.m4if.org >http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/news -- David Singer Apple Computer/QuickTime From jp skystream.com Fri May 3 12:00:00 2002 From: jp skystream.com (Jeyendran Balakrishnan) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:19 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing ... Message-ID: The people most happy with the current sorry state of MPEG-4 licensing will be those who already have widely used proprietary codecs (we all know who they are!). They must be praying that MPEG-LA never gets its act together to come up with terms which potential licensees fell are fair and reasonable. By all current evidence, their prayers appear likely to be answered. As for me, I'm looking at MPEG-4 Part 10 and hoping that it is patent-free ;-) Regards to all: Jeyendran -----Original Message----- From: Eamon O'Tuathail [mailto:eamon.otuathail@clipcode.com] Sent: Friday, May 03, 2024 2:58 AM To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Cc: 'M4IF news (E-mail)' Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] To those concerned about MPEG-4 Licensing ... I totally agree with this. Someone should remind the licensors behind MPEGLA that it is not a race to see who is slowest to market with modern streaming video products, but who is the fastest. Is it too much to ask that they get their act together and that licensing be fully sorted out by the end of this month? While MPEG4 is waiting for this mess to be sorted (and it is a mess), other competing solutions are racing ahead - the licensors should be reminded that although MPEG4 is a standard, that certainly does not mean it will automatically be accepted when (if?) it arrives. If other solutions are better, cheaper (no ridiculous royalties) and already widely distributed, then a very very very late MEPG 4 will be ignored (and that means zero royalties for the licensors). I would also suggest that future MPEG standards be designed so that they are not dependent on royalty-bearing patents. I know this is particular difficult in the audiovisual field, but with the alternative - the current situation - we have nothing shipping. Eamon O'Tuathail Clipcode.com -----Original Message----- From: news-admin@lists.m4if.org [mailto:news-admin@lists.m4if.org] On Behalf Of Chiariglione Leonardo Sent: 02 May 2024 22:15 To: Rob Koenen; M4IF news (E-mail) Subject: RE: [M4IF News] To those concerned about MPEG-4 Licensing ... >As everyone on this list knows, many concerns have been voiced over licensing of, notably, MPEG-4 Video. I am not voicing concern over the specific terms of the announced, but unconfirmed, MPEG-4 Video licensing. I am just reiterating what I said one year ago in San Jose at the M4IF meeting: if there is no way to get an MPEG-4 license, this is not fair and not reasonable (I do not know if it is discriminatory). Therefore such an ISO standard cannot be retained if normal people cannot get a license to use it. If the only answer for people wishing to use the standard, 3.5 years after it was approved, is that "the process is advancing" (thak you for informing us of this, we thought it was moving backwards) and that there are "hopes to have a further > > announcement in the near future" (thank you very much for your kind commitment), either we are dealing with too smart or too dull people. I, as the average subscriber to this list, am neither, but I know that, with such an attitude, there is no prospect to use the standard before the next ice age. One suggestion could be that the people working on MPEG-4 licensing reduce their engagements on the golf courses and turn a benevolent eye to such worldly matters as giving a chance to people who have believed in and supported a fair process, to be able to use its results. But, maybe, this is asking too much. Leonardo _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From craig pcube.com Fri May 3 15:59:40 2002 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:19 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing ... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 11:00 AM -0700 5/3/02, Jeyendran Balakrishnan wrote: > The people most happy with the current sorry state of MPEG-4 >licensing >will be those who already have widely used proprietary codecs (we all know >who >they are!). They must be praying that MPEG-LA never gets its act together >to come up with terms which potential licensees fell are fair and >reasonable. > > By all current evidence, their prayers appear likely to be answered. > > As for me, I'm looking at MPEG-4 Part 10 and hoping that it is >patent-free ;-) Actually there is a group that is happier with the current situation that proprietary would-be competitors. They are the people who took control of MPEG-2, created a mountain of new IP that entrenches this standard for the next 10 years. A standard that entrenches legacy analog video practices such as interlace for both SDTV and HDTV. A standard that entrenches the old business model of dumb receivers that display only linear programming controlled from afar. A standard they are now deploying at the rate of 40-50 million new devices each year, producing very healthy royalty streams. A standard which they used to get their foot in the door with usage fees for DVD. A standard that is simply too inefficient to be useful for new distribution infrastructures such as the web. They are the people who now seek to control the Internet and any other emerging technology that might threaten their control over the distribution of digital media content. The same people who have killed data broadcasting. The same people who have killed interactive television. The same people who want perfect control over every bit that is delivered to every consumer. Did you really think that they would let MPEG-4 compete with all of this? You could see this train wreck on the horizon long before MPEG-4 reached DIS status. -- Regards Craig Birkmaier Pcube Labs From yuval envivio.com Fri May 3 15:10:07 2002 From: yuval envivio.com (Yuval Fisher) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:19 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] To those concerned about MPEG-4 Licensing ... References: Message-ID: <3CD2FCAF.222BE1AA@envivio.com> > As for me, I'm looking at MPEG-4 Part 10 and hoping that it is > patent-free ;-) I wouldn't hold your breath. Many companies are nervous about submarine patents. There's a strong anti-free-license movement in MPEG. But I like Dave's idea. The lawyers need to have more incentive to finish quickly, and delaying standardization until the license is resolved would help this. y From rkoenen intertrust.com Fri May 3 20:59:52 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:19 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing ... Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59CF1B50@exchange.epr.com> > > As for me, I'm looking at MPEG-4 Part 10 and hoping > that it is > > patent-free ;-) > > > I wouldn't hold your breath. Many companies are nervous about > submarine > patents. There's a strong anti-free-license movement in MPEG. Sweeping statements like these are very unhelpful. It may indeed be unlikley that full JVT codec is going to be RF (Royalty-Free). There is, however, a strong desire among many parties to try and establish a RF baseline. There is an ongoing effort to see how such an RF baseline could be established. It is area in which people like to maneuver carefully, for obvious reasons. Rob From rkoenen intertrust.com Fri May 3 21:41:43 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:19 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Re: [M4IF News] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing ... Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59CF1B53@exchange.epr.com> Dear Richard, You wrote today: > All I know is that in my working on an almost daily basis with the > Hollywood Studios on compression for Digital Cinema, MPEG-4 has "shot > itself in the foot" by the licensing terms that it has > proposed. It cannot be repeated enough what the actual responsibilities are. MPEG-4 has not done anything, cannot do anything, because MPEG-4 is a standard and as such cannot act, not even shoot itself in the foot. The group that standardized MPEG-4, MPEG, is not the responsible actor either. MPEG does not determine licensing terms. If anyone at all has shot themselves in the foot, it's the licensors. The market has generally reacted adversely to the currently proposed licensing scheme. The license is a product that needs to be sold like other products. Please, let's be very clear on what the responsibilities are, because they determine whom you need to talk to. > A formal statement went from SMPTE to MPEG, the contents of which can > most easily be summarized by the simple statement that "no compression > algorithm that includes usage based license fees will be considered for > digital cinema". While this is interesting to know for MPEG, and MPEG may even regret it, it will not change the situation. Especialy when people start issuing formal statements, it is crucial that they be addressed at the right party. I urge all those concerned to talk to those that can actually change the situation: the licensors, who came up with the licensing terms to begin with. Talk to them, through MPEG LA. Do it now, while things are still under definition. Forward the liaison to MPEG to MPEG LA. Please. > The studios consider encoder and decoder fees reasonable and > non-discriminatory, and with the price of Digital Cinema encoders and > decoders likely to be in the tens of thousands of dollars, > particularly the > encoders, the digital cinema market could absorb very high one time > hardware licensing fees. This is a useful piece of information, that can form the basis of a constructive dialog when directed to the appropriate parties. Kind Regards, Rob > > Chiariglione Leonardo wrote: > > > >As everyone on this list knows, many concerns have been voiced over > > licensing of, notably, MPEG-4 Video. > > > > I am not voicing concern over the specific terms of the > announced, but > > unconfirmed, MPEG-4 Video licensing. I am just reiterating > what I said > > one year ago in San Jose at the M4IF meeting: if there is > no way to get > > an MPEG-4 license, this is not fair and not reasonable (I > do not know if > > it is discriminatory). Therefore such an ISO standard > cannot be retained > > if normal people cannot get a license to use it. > > If the only answer for people wishing to use the standard, 3.5 years > > after it was approved, is that "the process is advancing" > (thak you for > > informing us of this, we thought it was moving backwards) > and that there > > are "hopes to have a further > > announcement in the near > future" (thank > > you very much for your kind commitment), either we are > dealing with too > > smart or too dull people. I, as the average subscriber to > this list, am > > neither, but I know that, with such an attitude, there is > no prospect to > > use the standard before the next ice age. > > One suggestion could be that the people working on MPEG-4 licensing > > reduce their engagements on the golf courses and turn a > benevolent eye > > to such worldly matters as giving a chance to people who > have believed > > in and supported a fair process, to be able to use its results. But, > > maybe, this is asking too much. > > Leonardo > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Rob Koenen [mailto:rkoenen@intertrust.com] > > Sent: 2002 maggio 01 mercoled? 01:40 > > To: M4IF news (E-mail) > > Subject: [M4IF News] To those concerned about MPEG-4 > Licensing > > ... > > > > M4IF watchers, > > > > Coming Friday, May 3rd, M4IF is having a special meeting on MPEG-4 > > licensing. This meeting will be attended by both potential > licensees and > > licensors. No decisions on licensing will be taken (M4IF > cannot do that) > > but the meeting will provide valuable input for the > licensors to take > > into account. > > As everyone on this list knows, many concerns have been voiced over > > licensing of, notably, MPEG-4 Video. > > Many of these concerns have been brought to the awareness of the > > licensors, usually through MPEGLA. Unfortunately, not all concerned > > parties have made their opinions known. Some of you have > just moved on > > to other technologies. Because the licensors and MPEGLA *ARE* > > listening, it is crucial that your voices be heard. > > THIS IS perhaps YOUR LAST CHANCE to still voice concerns. > If you want to > > use MPEG-4 technology, but have an issue with the structure of the > > license as it has been announced, then please let me know AS SOON AS > > POSSIBLE, but Thursday at the latest. > > Let me know on behalf of whom you are speaking and if your > name can be > > used, or if you want to be 'anonimized'. > > I will bring all constructive input to the attention of the meeting, > > including the licensors and their representatives. > > Kind Regards, > > > > Rob Koenen > > President, M4IF > > > > ps: please do not reply to the list. A summary of all input will be > > provided, as well as a public report on the result of the meeting. > > _______________________________________________ > > News mailing list > > News@lists.m4if.org > > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/news > > > > _______________________________________________ > > News mailing list > > News@lists.m4if.org > > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/news > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From rkoenen intertrust.com Fri May 3 21:41:40 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:19 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing ... Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59CF1B52@exchange.epr.com> > Did you really think that they would let MPEG-4 compete with > all of this? > > You could see this train wreck on the horizon long before MPEG-4 > reached DIS status. Always interesting to coin up all sorts of conspiracy theories. In this case, however, I strongly believe in the motto "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance." Let's see what the license looks like when it is done, before we pass judgement on "they". (Yes, "they" do need to finalize it Real Soon Now.) Rob From wjf NetworkXXIII.com Fri May 3 21:52:58 2002 From: wjf NetworkXXIII.com (William J. Fulco) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:19 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing ... In-Reply-To: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59CF1B52@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: Craig, or perhaps - "Never attribute to ignorance what can be adequately explained by greed.".... err 'unenlightened self interest' ++Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org > [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Rob Koenen > Sent: Friday, May 03, 2024 8:42 PM > To: Craig Birkmaier; discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] To those concerned about > MPEG- 4 Licensing ... > > > > Did you really think that they would let MPEG-4 compete with > > all of this? > > > > You could see this train wreck on the horizon long before MPEG-4 > > reached DIS status. > > Always interesting to coin up all sorts of conspiracy theories. > In this case, however, I strongly believe in the motto > "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance." > > Let's see what the license looks like when it is done, before we pass > judgement on "they". (Yes, "they" do need to finalize it Real Soon Now.) > > Rob > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From wjf NetworkXXIII.com Sat May 4 02:30:25 2002 From: wjf NetworkXXIII.com (William J. Fulco) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:19 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sorry Rob (and Craig), I addressed my little barb to the wrong person... While I agree with Craig that there are very likely "nefarious" forces that wish to see the MPEG-2 infrastructure continue (certainly for current applications like DVD) - I believe that what prompted the usage fee for MPEG-4 was "them" not wanting to lose the MPEG-2 Royalty stream for packaged media... after all, if MPEG-4 were RF in places that MPEG-2 is RB (Royalty Bering?) - then clearly there is an incentive to move from MPEG-2 DVDs and such to MPEG-4 DVDs and such. Given that most manufacturers are already considering "net-connected" consumer electronic devices - this kind of move would be easy to do (for some definition of the word "easy").... I think their thinking was "How do you prevent MPEG-2 IP for things like DVDs from becoming "useless"? Make MPEG-4 cost "the same" " (for some definition of "the same"...) Anyway, I'm not the pessimist that perhaps Craig is. Capitalism has this nasty habit of producing what "the market wants" (for some definition... ) by hook or by crook (sometimes literally in the case of a "black market"). People will get what they want... so, while we're all quite fond of a hard-fought international standard called MPEG-4 which will (may?) let us all find format-nirvana - two things come to mind: 1) There never was and never will be one-algorithm-fits-all "format nirvana" - though MPEG-4 offers hope of a greatly lessened "format war" and 2) There are similar and even better technologies out there right now - from the "big three" - Apple, Real, MS as well as smaller players... we WILL get our internet A/V/G/I, hot-to-trot format - and maybe we'll have to suffer MS, Real and Apple battling out the container formats and maybe we'll have to suffer with On2, DivX, Pulsnat, DGFX, Real, MS, Sorensen, Apple and a dozen other garage-shops that have not yet appeared in public battling for compression "standards" ? however ? IF THERE IS A MARKET DEMAND for what MPEG-4 can do (that MPEG-2 can't) ? then it WILL get satisfied... "The market" is messy but it almost always works - eventually (unless big government entity outlaws the "correct" solution - and even then it often still works). Let me note a quick example... NAPLS (North American Presentation Level Syntax) ? was THE "standard" that was going to give us something fabulous like France's MINITEL ? a "wonderful" online-system for ordering stuff and getting weather reports and ordering theater ticks and making dinner reservations at the local restaurant... NAPLS was at last going to allow North-America to "catch up" with the technologically-advanced French and their "graphical" terminals at home. Telco-supplied, government-approved "system?... darn if that just didn't catch on and got superceded by some little college-kid/physicist-hack-document-sharing-system that was messy, and terrible, and barely standardized system called ? the world-wide-web... yes the web happened because there was an SGML knockoff called HTML/HTTP ? but that "standard" moved quickly etc etc. Another example ? MUSE was going to be the dominant HDTV format world-wide... etc etc. My point is there are ALWAYS ways to get what we TRULY WANT (willing to pay for somehow) and while I think that MPEG-LA mess runs the risk of relegating MPEG-4 to virtual irrelevancy - if it does ? that does not mean we don't get all the MPEG-4 goodies we want... it just means we get them in a different way with a different time-frame. What did Henry Ford say "If I built what people asked for, I would have invented a faster horse. I built what people really wanted"... The competitors of MPEG-4 standard are not "evil" - they're just, well, competitors - and if MPEG-LA is so stupid as to kill MPEG-4 - then so be it- we'll live, we'll survive. We?ll still get our Net-connected DVD-players and downloadable music will still occur and movies on demand will still come to pass and net-porn will still be shot and distributed and wireless web-cams will still be built. It?s just that it might not be wrapped-up in a handy little "standard" - all neat and tidy like us "knowledgeable" engineers and scientists and business people might like. And it might not happen as quickly - and people that make programmable video-processors will have an advantage over the cheaper fixed-algorithm processors... ya de ya di ya di... Fear not the future will arrive no matter what way this goes. Fight the good fight - try to convince the IP holders and the (I believe protectors of the status-quo) MPEG-LA folks to come to their senses... but don't worry the world will not come to an end if MPEG-4 goes the way of H.263 (useful in a limited set of applications) or NAPLS (useful in NO applications). And as far as wanting to avoid "submarine patents" - is it my imagination or am I remembering correctly that the concept of motion compensation is subject to IP licenses - so any Codec that uses ME/MC can theoretically be nuked? I'm tellin' ya - go look at your local library for 20yo technology for video compression - there's lots of useful stuff there - LOL ++Bill William J. Fulco wjf@NetworkXXIII.com 310-927-4263 Cell --------------------------------- Logic: When you absolutely, positively have to refute every fallacy in the room. From dan on2.com Sat May 4 20:58:25 2002 From: dan on2.com (Daniel B. Miller) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:19 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200205042358.g44NwQGR012622@on2.com> I think Bill's post describes the state of affairs mightily well. As one of the potentially 'nefarious' little companies struggling to promote a non-MPEG format, I can say that customers care about standards ONLY when they can do what the customer needs. Customers do care about longevity of the format, interoperability, etc., but first and foremost, they need a solution that works and is priced rationally. It should be obvious that if customers start demanding MPEG-4 and nothing else, everyone from MS on down will have no choice but to respond. However, it won't happen because it is intellectually preferable, or elegant, or theoretically in the common good but not in the specific interest of customers and vendors. As the music industry has found to its dismay (and the rest of the entertainment giants are becoming aware), it is simply not possible to legislate technolgy adoption in a free market. If MPEG-4 really does become a standard (in the defacto, near-universal-adoption sense as opposed to something agreed upon by a standards body), it will be because it works in the marketplace, both technically and businesswise. It needs to do so under the same legal and regulatory constraints that any business venture must adhere to. Otherwise, it will fail for the same reason every attempt to regulate markets unnaturally fails -- because it is simply not possible to keep consenting parties from making deals that make sense to them. ___ Dan Miller (++,) CTO and founder, On2 Technologies On Sat, 4 May 2002, William J. Fulco wrote: > Sorry Rob (and Craig), > > I addressed my little barb to the wrong person... > > While I agree with Craig that there are very likely "nefarious" forces that > wish to see the MPEG-2 infrastructure continue (certainly for current > applications like DVD) - I believe that what prompted the usage fee for > MPEG-4 was "them" not wanting to lose the MPEG-2 Royalty stream for packaged > media... after all, if MPEG-4 were RF in places that MPEG-2 is RB (Royalty > Bering?) - then clearly there is an incentive to move from MPEG-2 DVDs and > such to MPEG-4 DVDs and such. Given that most manufacturers are already > considering "net-connected" consumer electronic devices - this kind of move > would be easy to do (for some definition of the word "easy").... I think > their thinking was "How do you prevent MPEG-2 IP for things like DVDs from > becoming "useless"? Make MPEG-4 cost "the same" " (for some definition of > "the same"...) > > Anyway, I'm not the pessimist that perhaps Craig is. Capitalism has this > nasty habit of producing what "the market wants" (for some definition... ) > by hook or by crook (sometimes literally in the case of a "black market"). > People will get what they want... so, while we're all quite fond of a > hard-fought international standard called MPEG-4 which will (may?) let us > all find format-nirvana - two things come to mind: > > 1) There never was and never will be one-algorithm-fits-all "format > nirvana" - though MPEG-4 offers hope of a greatly lessened "format war" and > > 2) There are similar and even better technologies out there right now - from > the "big three" - Apple, Real, MS as well as smaller players... we WILL get > our internet A/V/G/I, hot-to-trot format - and maybe we'll have to suffer > MS, Real and Apple battling out the container formats and maybe we'll have > to suffer with On2, DivX, Pulsnat, DGFX, Real, MS, Sorensen, Apple and a > dozen other garage-shops that have not yet appeared in public battling for > compression "standards" – however – IF THERE IS A MARKET DEMAND for what > MPEG-4 can do (that MPEG-2 can't) – then it WILL get satisfied... "The > market" is messy but it almost always works - eventually (unless big > government entity outlaws the "correct" solution - and even then it often > still works). > > Let me note a quick example... > > NAPLS (North American Presentation Level Syntax) – was THE "standard" that > was going to give us something fabulous like France's MINITEL – a > "wonderful" online-system for ordering stuff and getting weather reports and > ordering theater ticks and making dinner reservations at the local > restaurant... NAPLS was at last going to allow North-America to "catch up" > with the technologically-advanced French and their "graphical" terminals at > home. Telco-supplied, government-approved "system”... darn if that just > didn't catch on and got superceded by some little > college-kid/physicist-hack-document-sharing-system that was messy, and > terrible, and barely standardized system called – the world-wide-web... yes > the web happened because there was an SGML knockoff called HTML/HTTP – but > that "standard" moved quickly etc etc. Another example – MUSE was going to > be the dominant HDTV format world-wide... etc etc. > > My point is there are ALWAYS ways to get what we TRULY WANT (willing to pay > for somehow) and while I think that MPEG-LA mess runs the risk of relegating > MPEG-4 to virtual irrelevancy - if it does – that does not mean we don't get > all the MPEG-4 goodies we want... it just means we get them in a different > way with a different time-frame. > > What did Henry Ford say "If I built what people asked for, I would have > invented a faster horse. I built what people really wanted"... > > The competitors of MPEG-4 standard are not "evil" - they're just, well, > competitors - and if MPEG-LA is so stupid as to kill MPEG-4 - then so be it- > we'll live, we'll survive. We’ll still get our Net-connected DVD-players and > downloadable music will still occur and movies on demand will still come to > pass and net-porn will still be shot and distributed and wireless web-cams > will still be built. It’s just that it might not be wrapped-up in a handy > little "standard" - all neat and tidy like us "knowledgeable" engineers and > scientists and business people might like. And it might not happen as > quickly - and people that make programmable video-processors will have an > advantage over the cheaper fixed-algorithm processors... ya de ya di ya > di... > > Fear not the future will arrive no matter what way this goes. Fight the good > fight - try to convince the IP holders and the (I believe protectors of the > status-quo) MPEG-LA folks to come to their senses... but don't worry the > world will not come to an end if MPEG-4 goes the way of H.263 (useful in a > limited set of applications) or NAPLS (useful in NO applications). > > And as far as wanting to avoid "submarine patents" - is it my imagination or > am I remembering correctly that the concept of motion compensation is > subject to IP licenses - so any Codec that uses ME/MC can theoretically be > nuked? > > I'm tellin' ya - go look at your local library for 20yo technology for video > compression - there's lots of useful stuff there - LOL > > ++Bill > > > William J. Fulco > wjf@NetworkXXIII.com > 310-927-4263 Cell > --------------------------------- > Logic: When you absolutely, positively > have to refute every fallacy in the room. > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From rkoenen intertrust.com Sat May 4 23:49:16 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:19 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Results M4IF Fairfax Meeting Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59CF1B6D@exchange.epr.com> M4IF Members and MPEG-4 Watchers, Our meeting yesterday in Fairfax was an interesting event, as one can expect from a meeting that discusses issues surrounding MPEG-4 licensing. Decisions on licensing were of course not taken, as M4IF is not responsible for such terms. I do expect, however, that the open discussion between licensors, their representatives and potential licensees will result in a better mutual understanding of the situation and an even greater sense of urgency among licensors than already existed. Below are the resolutions of the meeting. My notes taken during the discussion will be posted on our website shortly, together with these resolutions (http://www.m4if.org; see under M4IF News). I apologize for any duplication in emails caused by the wide distribution of this email, but I consider this important information for all involved with MPEG-4. Kind Regards, Rob Koenen, President, M4IF ______________________________________________________________________ Meeting 9th M4IF meeting, Fairfax, VA, USA, May 2002 Document: m4-out-20017 Source: Plenary Meeting Title: Resolutions of the 9th (Fairfax) MPEG-4 Industry Forum Meeting Status: Final Purpose: Output of meeting Resolutions of the 9th (Fairfax) Special MPEG-4 Industry Forum meeting on Licensing 1. M4IF, noting that it is now 3.5 years after MPEG-4 Version 1 was approved by WG11, urges the licensors to come with licensing terms within a matter of weeks. 2. M4IF notes that there is much concern of what the market understands to be the proposed licensing scheme for notably MPEG-4 Visual, and urges licensors to listen to and address these concerns. 3. M4IF urges parties that wish to use MPEG-4, but do not like the proposed licensing terms, to engage in a discussion with the licensors through their representatives: * MPEG LA as the Licensing Agent for Visual * MPEG LA as facilitator of the Systems Patent Holder Group, * Dolby as the facilitator for the Audio Patent Holder Group * Dolby as the Licensing Agent for the AAC Group that has started to license its MPEG-4 AAC patents 4. M4IF points to the "Summary of the MPEG-4 Licensing Situation by the President" (m4-out-20017) for an account of what was discussed during the meeting. M4IF notes that the goal of these discussions was not to reach a consensus, but to document the situation. 5. In order to facilitate deployment of MPEG-4 Structured Audio and Face/Body Animation, it will be necessary to assess the patent situation. M4IF resolves to have a "Call for Existence of Patents Essential to the Implementation of MPEG-4 Structured Audio and Face/Body Animation" at the June M4IF meeting. If such a Call results in statements by parties that believe that such essential patents may exist, M4IF will recommend that there be a third-party process to: a) Determine if there are such essential patents, and, if so b) Establish a joint licensing scheme for each of these two pieces of technology. This process will be like the processes that lead to the establishment of the Visual, Audio and Systems Patent Holder Groups. M4IF will not be involved in either the determination of essentiality or the discussions between such patent holders. 6. M4IF recommends that discussions on M4IF's potential roles in: * getting rapid access to licenses for MPEG-4 part 10 and AFX/Multi-user worlds, and * facilitating a royalty-free baseline, continue on a new discussion list, Patent WG5 (patentWG5@lists.m4if.org), to be chaired by a chairperson to be found among the M4IF members taking part in the JVT process. Jan van der Meer (Jan.vandermeer@philips.com) will chair the discussions until such a chair has been identified. M4IF is prepared to fulfill any role in this process that could advance the process, and is consistent with its Statutes. Adjourned 17:11 hours ______________________________________________________________________ From rkoenen intertrust.com Sun May 5 00:41:18 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:19 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing ... Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59CF1B78@exchange.epr.com> Dan Miller wrote: > If MPEG-4 really does become a standard (in the defacto, > near-universal-adoption sense as opposed to something agreed upon by a > standards body), it will be because it works in the marketplace, both > technically and businesswise. Fully agreed. As has been noted before, and as was repeated a number of times in the special M4IF meeting on licensing yesterday: MPEG-4 has competition, and needs to earn its place as a viable solution. The issue that remains is mostly the license. 'Reasonable' in licensing terms is always a vague term, but it can be directly translated to 'Allowing competitive solutions to be built", which makes it much more concrete and tangible. Best, Rob From wjf NetworkXXIII.com Sun May 5 01:15:31 2002 From: wjf NetworkXXIII.com (William J. Fulco) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:19 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing ... In-Reply-To: <200205042358.g44NwQGR012622@on2.com> Message-ID: Dan, Just a correction.... I didn't say the competitors to MPEG-4 were nefarious! ... thus: > I think Bill's post describes the state of affairs mightily well. As one > of the potentially 'nefarious' little companies struggling to promote a > non-MPEG format, I said that Craig's suggestion that they "powers that be that want to protect the MPEG-2 packaged-media royalty stream" were nefarious (my words)... was something I agreed with... thus: [SNIP] > > While I agree with Craig that there are very likely "nefarious" > > forces that wish to see the MPEG-2 infrastructure continue > > (certainly for current applications like DVD) I'd never call your guys nefarious ;-) ++Bill William J. Fulco wjf@NetworkXXIII.com 310-927-4263 Cell ----------------------------------------- Logic: When you absolutely, positively have to refute every fallacy in the room. From dan on2.com Sun May 5 06:02:19 2002 From: dan on2.com (Daniel B. Miller) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:20 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200205050902.g4592JGR019473@on2.com> I was branding ourselves as nefarious in the minds of some, not you specifically -- sorry to be unclear. ___ Dan Miller (++,) CTO and founder, On2 Technologies On Sun, 5 May 2002, William J. Fulco wrote: > Dan, > > Just a correction.... I didn't say the competitors to MPEG-4 were nefarious! > ... thus: > > > I think Bill's post describes the state of affairs mightily well. As one > > of the potentially 'nefarious' little companies struggling to promote a > > non-MPEG format, > > I said that Craig's suggestion that they "powers that be that want to > protect the MPEG-2 packaged-media royalty stream" were nefarious (my > words)... was something I agreed with... thus: > > [SNIP] > > > > While I agree with Craig that there are very likely "nefarious" > > > forces that wish to see the MPEG-2 infrastructure continue > > > (certainly for current applications like DVD) > > I'd never call your guys nefarious ;-) > > ++Bill > > William J. Fulco > wjf@NetworkXXIII.com > 310-927-4263 Cell > ----------------------------------------- > Logic: When you absolutely, positively > have to refute every fallacy in the room. > From edsmedia alum.mit.edu Sun May 5 11:16:58 2002 From: edsmedia alum.mit.edu (Eric Scheirer) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:20 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Re: [M4IF News] Results M4IF Fairfax Meeting References: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59CF1B6D@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: <002b01c1f43f$af647d40$0301a8c0@office> Hi Rob and all, I just wanted to make a note regarding the following part of the results: > 5. In order to facilitate deployment of MPEG-4 Structured Audio > and Face/Body Animation, it will be necessary to assess the > patent situation. M4IF resolves to have a "Call for Existence > of Patents Essential to the Implementation of MPEG-4 Structured > Audio and Face/Body Animation" at the June M4IF meeting. If > such a Call results in statements by parties that believe that > such essential patents may exist, M4IF will recommend that > there be a third-party process to: > a) Determine if there are such essential patents, and, if so > b) Establish a joint licensing scheme for each of these two > pieces of technology. In particular, regarding MPEG-4 Structured Audio and MPEG-4 AudioBIFS Version 1, it is my strongly held belief that these parts of the standard are completely patent-free. That was always the intent of MIT in taking the lead role in developing and integrating technology for these parts of the standard, and MIT at least has officially released all of its pertinent technology into the public domain. Further, as an individual contributor with a fair knowledge of the patent landscape in the music-synthesis space, I continue to believe that there are no applicable patents governing the use of MPEG-4 Structured Audio. I will point out that most of the basic concepts in this standard are much older than the basic concepts in lossy audio/video coding, dating back to the work of Mathews in the early 1960s. I definitely support the statement (5) in the precise form articulated above, namely, to demand that those who believe there are patents applicable and required for the implementation of MPEG-4 Structured Audio to come forward with appropriate documentation. However, as part of this support, I must strongly articulate my belief that it is not appropriate for others to say "well, maybe there are still patents" or "nobody knows if there are patents." I say in response: *I* know, and it is the case that there are none (of course I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice). I will continue to say this and to encourage the open development and deployment of Structured Audio tools until convincing evidence by the appropriate stakeholders, not just "concern" by third parties, is presented to the contrary. Best to all, -- Eric ---- Eric D. Scheirer, Ph.D. edsmedia@alum.mit.edu +1 617 666 8905 http://sound.media.mit.edu/~eds From craig pcube.com Sun May 5 13:44:21 2002 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:20 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing ... In-Reply-To: <200205042358.g44NwQGR012622@on2.com> References: <200205042358.g44NwQGR012622@on2.com> Message-ID: At 7:58 PM -0400 5/4/02, Daniel B. Miller wrote: >I think Bill's post describes the state of affairs mightily well. I also concur that Bill accurately portrayed the current realities. >As one >of the potentially 'nefarious' little companies struggling to promote a >non-MPEG format, I can say that customers care about standards ONLY when >they can do what the customer needs. From wwlu yahoo.com Sun May 5 14:05:56 2002 From: wwlu yahoo.com (Chair of 3G02/Globecom03/VTC03) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:20 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] 3Gwireless'2002 & 4G Mobile Forum Kickoff Message-ID: <3CD590A4.F6D7B70@yahoo.com> Dear colleagues: The important 3Gwireless'2002 and 4Gmobile Forum kickoff are just weeks to go. To get involved in the intensive technical discussions and strategies on 3G/4G, please reserve your seat right now at: http://wirelesscongress.com or http://delson.org/wc. Welcome on board and secure your leadership in this emerging wireless communication. Thank you. Office of Chairman 3G02/WWC02 http://wirelesscongress.com PS: Limited number of conference records are freely available to government agencies, public library and wireless authorities. Contact the conference for details. [Sorry for multiple copies of this message. This is only one-time transmission for technical info only. Complete removal is automatic. Thanks for your support for the promotion of education and research.] From ramizer wmr.com Mon May 6 10:17:57 2002 From: ramizer wmr.com (richard mizer) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:20 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Re: [M4IF News] To those concerned about MPEG-4 Licensing ... References: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59CF1B53@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: <3CD6BAC4.32FA72C0@wmr.com> Point well taken...I guess I was a little lacksadaisical in complaining that it was MPEG that is responsible...you are right, it is MPEG-LA as representative for the IP holders...however, you see the perception that exists in the Studios, that are blaming MPEG, because they do not have a clear picture of this license issue, and don't differentiate between MPEG-4, MPEG-LA and even ISO-MPEG....they put the blame on all when they say they won't use it, regardless of who came up with the proposed terms. What is equally interesting is that they don't seem to realize that they are already paying usage based fees for MPEG-2 to MPEG-LA for DVDs. I agree what is important now is that the studios direct their message to MPEG-LA, and I will endeavor within Digital Cinema to make the participants realize that MPEG is not the cause of the licensing issues, and that they should send a position to MPEG-LA. But I agree also with some of the other comments on this thread that MPEG may need to relook at it's patent policy. It seems that there is growing resentment with licensing fees which is encouraging proprietary solutions to stay proprietary where they make their money off of sales rather than license fees (the Real and MS model). In the mean time, the Digital Cinema work will be going on next week in MPEG...hopefully the IP licensing issues will be resolved before it is made a standard. I think many of the Digital Cinema compression technology providers hope that their proprietary solution would get selected rather than have to go with an industry standard. Rob Koenen wrote: > Dear Richard, > > You wrote today: > > > All I know is that in my working on an almost daily basis with the > > Hollywood Studios on compression for Digital Cinema, MPEG-4 has "shot > > itself in the foot" by the licensing terms that it has > > proposed. > > It cannot be repeated enough what the actual responsibilities are. > > MPEG-4 has not done anything, cannot do anything, because MPEG-4 is > a standard and as such cannot act, not even shoot itself in the foot. > The group that standardized MPEG-4, MPEG, is not the responsible actor > either. MPEG does not determine licensing terms. > > If anyone at all has shot themselves in the foot, it's the licensors. > The market has generally reacted adversely to the currently proposed > licensing scheme. The license is a product that needs to be sold like > other products. > > Please, let's be very clear on what the responsibilities are, because > they determine whom you need to talk to. > > > A formal statement went from SMPTE to MPEG, the contents of which can > > most easily be summarized by the simple statement that "no compression > > algorithm that includes usage based license fees will be considered for > > digital cinema". > > While this is interesting to know for MPEG, and MPEG may even regret it, > it will not change the situation. Especialy when people start issuing > formal statements, it is crucial that they be addressed at the right party. > I urge all those concerned to talk to those that can actually change the > situation: the licensors, who came up with the licensing terms to begin > with. > Talk to them, through MPEG LA. Do it now, while things are still under > definition. Forward the liaison to MPEG to MPEG LA. Please. > > > The studios consider encoder and decoder fees reasonable and > > non-discriminatory, and with the price of Digital Cinema encoders and > > decoders likely to be in the tens of thousands of dollars, > > particularly the > > encoders, the digital cinema market could absorb very high one time > > hardware licensing fees. > > This is a useful piece of information, that can form the basis of a > constructive dialog when directed to the appropriate parties. > > Kind Regards, > > Rob > From ramizer wmr.com Mon May 6 10:19:33 2002 From: ramizer wmr.com (richard mizer) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:20 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing ... References: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59CF1B78@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: <3CD6BB24.9C6EFAEE@wmr.com> To add to this discussion point....MPEG-4 offers a greater scope of multimedia options than Real Video, or Media Player (perhaps not Quicktime, but...)....on the other hand, both Corona and Real 9 probably provide better video quality than MPEG-4 in the currently licensed profiles...this is a no win situation for two reasons...first, while Real has fees and Media Player has its own problems, neither expects per use fees (with the possible exception of Real Server) so their administrative costs are much less to the users. Second, and more important, they have a significant head start and gigantic market share...MPEG-4 is building tools that may be available soon, and while the video licensing arrangements and audio licensing arrangements have been posted, without much acceptance...there are other patents that truly differentiate MPEG-4 from the proprietary solutions that have yet to surface....they are losing ground to the encumbants. The bottom line is, unless MPEG-4 becomes easier, and cheaper, to use than Media Player or Real it is dead. Cheaper can come with hardware decoders based on a standard so chips that support MPEG-4 and MPEG-2 can be installed in settops...easier to use requires user friendly tools of which there are only a few so far. An analogy is appopriate... in 1996 DVD authoring was in its infancy...players didn't exist...authoring software was very buggy, and expensive...but their only competition was VHS (and Laserdisc) which didn't even compete with the functionality that DVD offered. In 2002...while MPEG-4 offers functionality that Media Player and Real cannot really provide...authoring software is very buggy and not really even available...and so the competition is currently superior. Within the next 6 months MPEG-4 will either live or die in the market...partlly because of competition from Real and Microsoft, which is enough to worry about...but even more so because the start-up companies building MPEG-4 tools are faced with an uncertainty of survival that limits their ability to make the tools user friendly and successful because of this licensing dilemna....even established companies line the roadway as VC has dried up. To complete the analogy...the two companies that made DVD happen are Daikin and Toshiba....fortunately Daikin's DVD authoring software team was camoflagued inside a mulitbillion dollar airconditioner company...and Toshiba was under extreme pressure from Warner Bros to make it happen at any cost...eventually they enforced license fees but not until after DVD players and discs and authoring systems were being sold in the millions....as far as I know the first public presentation by MPEG-LA was at the DVD Pro conference in Santa Barbara on August 31, 2023 , after DVD was well on its way to commercial success, and then they were given a years grace period (I have the presentation notes since I was also a speaker at the conference). Do Envivio, IVast, even Philips...have that luxury....MPEG-4 is in jeapordy of being still-born...MPEG LA is counting the money before any has been made. If I have any message to the license holders it is this: give it away for now...get everyone hooked...and then renegotiate licensing fees down the road when there is something out there to collect....otherwise all of us have wasted all our time, and you won't make a penny. Rob Koenen wrote: > Dan Miller wrote: > > > If MPEG-4 really does become a standard (in the defacto, > > near-universal-adoption sense as opposed to something agreed upon by a > > standards body), it will be because it works in the marketplace, both > > technically and businesswise. > > Fully agreed. > > As has been noted before, and as was repeated a number of times in the > special M4IF meeting on licensing yesterday: MPEG-4 has competition, and > needs to earn its place as a viable solution. The issue that remains is > mostly the license. 'Reasonable' in licensing terms is always a vague term, > but it can be directly translated to 'Allowing competitive solutions to > be built", which makes it much more concrete and tangible. > > Best, > Rob > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From jp skystream.com Mon May 6 10:52:09 2002 From: jp skystream.com (Jeyendran Balakrishnan) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:20 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing ... Message-ID: Rob, I agree with your comments about sweeping statememts. Moderation in public statements will perhaps achieve more than an extreme approach. My comment about hoping that the JVT codec is patent-free was intended to be light-hearted - which explained the ;-)... In practice, I have some doubts that any compression standard these days can entirely be "patent-free." IMHO, there may not be sufficient incentive for for-profit corporations to contribute their IP for the public good otherwise. Having said this, I still hope that some really useful version of the JVT codec is standardized to be preferably patent-free or at worst comes with minimal patent baggage. One minimal requirement is "No usage fees!" I hope the convenors of MPEG-4 Part-10 are reading this list. :-) Regarding other suggestions from you that "I urge all those concerned to talk to those that can actually change the situation: the licensors, who came up with the licensing terms to begin with. Talk to them, through MPEG LA. Do it now, while things are still under definition.": This is really useful advice to those of the MPEG-4 community who are feeling frustrated at the current state of the MPEG-LA patent licensing position. I was basically hoping that MPEG-LA regularly reads this discussion list, and that they will clearly understand the public reaction, and easen their position accordingly. But I guess that may be a naive belief! Can you let the list know how one may forward comments to MPEG-LA? Regards: Jeyendran -----Original Message----- From: Rob Koenen [mailto:rkoenen@intertrust.com] Sent: Friday, May 03, 2024 8:00 PM To: Yuval Fisher Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing ... > > As for me, I'm looking at MPEG-4 Part 10 and hoping > that it is > > patent-free ;-) > > > I wouldn't hold your breath. Many companies are nervous about > submarine > patents. There's a strong anti-free-license movement in MPEG. Sweeping statements like these are very unhelpful. It may indeed be unlikley that full JVT codec is going to be RF (Royalty-Free). There is, however, a strong desire among many parties to try and establish a RF baseline. There is an ongoing effort to see how such an RF baseline could be established. It is area in which people like to maneuver carefully, for obvious reasons. Rob _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From rkoenen intertrust.com Mon May 6 11:02:17 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:20 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing ... Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59CF1B84@exchange.epr.com> > I was basically hoping that MPEG-LA > regularly reads this discussion list, and that they will > clearly understand the public reaction, > and easen their position accordingly. But I guess that may be a naive > belief! They actually do read the list, and so do many licensors, but they do not always respond. We had a good disxussion last Friday when MPEG LA and representatives for the Ausdio licensing were at the special M4IF meeting on licensing. Things are still in flux. My advice to contact MPEG LA was also aimed at those that do not send their opinion to this list. You will see very few official statements fromlarge corporations on lists like these, even thought they may have (strong) opinions. Larry Horn (LHorn@mpegla.com) is MPEG LA's VP of licensing who works on MPEG-4 licensing. Regards, Rob > > Can you let the list know how one may forward comments to MPEG-LA? > > Regards: > Jeyendran > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Koenen [mailto:rkoenen@intertrust.com] > Sent: Friday, May 03, 2024 8:00 PM > To: Yuval Fisher > Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] To those concerned about > MPEG- 4 Licensing ... > > > > > As for me, I'm looking at MPEG-4 Part 10 and hoping > > that it is > > > patent-free ;-) > > > > > > I wouldn't hold your breath. Many companies are nervous about > > submarine > > patents. There's a strong anti-free-license movement in MPEG. > > Sweeping statements like these are very unhelpful. > > It may indeed be unlikley that full JVT codec is going to be RF > (Royalty-Free). > There is, however, a strong desire among many parties to try and > establish a RF baseline. There is an ongoing effort to see how such > an RF baseline could be established. It is area in which people like > to maneuver carefully, for obvious reasons. > > Rob > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From RXH dolby.com Mon May 6 11:14:30 2002 From: RXH dolby.com (Haidamus, Ramzi) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:20 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing ... Message-ID: Speaking for the Audio Patent Group, yes we are tuned in and we are all ears! Ramzi -----Original Message----- From: Rob Koenen [mailto:rkoenen@intertrust.com] Sent: Monday, May 06, 2024 10:02 AM To: Jeyendran Balakrishnan; 'Rob Koenen' Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing ... > I was basically hoping that MPEG-LA > regularly reads this discussion list, and that they will > clearly understand the public reaction, > and easen their position accordingly. But I guess that may be a naive > belief! They actually do read the list, and so do many licensors, but they do not always respond. We had a good disxussion last Friday when MPEG LA and representatives for the Ausdio licensing were at the special M4IF meeting on licensing. Things are still in flux. My advice to contact MPEG LA was also aimed at those that do not send their opinion to this list. You will see very few official statements fromlarge corporations on lists like these, even thought they may have (strong) opinions. Larry Horn (LHorn@mpegla.com) is MPEG LA's VP of licensing who works on MPEG-4 licensing. Regards, Rob > > Can you let the list know how one may forward comments to MPEG-LA? > > Regards: > Jeyendran > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Koenen [mailto:rkoenen@intertrust.com] > Sent: Friday, May 03, 2024 8:00 PM > To: Yuval Fisher > Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] To those concerned about > MPEG- 4 Licensing ... > > > > > As for me, I'm looking at MPEG-4 Part 10 and hoping > > that it is > > > patent-free ;-) > > > > > > I wouldn't hold your breath. Many companies are nervous about > > submarine > > patents. There's a strong anti-free-license movement in MPEG. > > Sweeping statements like these are very unhelpful. > > It may indeed be unlikley that full JVT codec is going to be RF > (Royalty-Free). There is, however, a strong desire among many parties > to try and establish a RF baseline. There is an ongoing effort to see > how such an RF baseline could be established. It is area in which > people like to maneuver carefully, for obvious reasons. > > 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 -------------------- This message (including any attachments) may contain confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose. If you are not the intended recipient, delete this message. If you are not the intended recipient, disclosing, copying, distributing, or taking any action based on this message is strictly prohibited. From jp skystream.com Mon May 6 11:28:21 2002 From: jp skystream.com (Jeyendran Balakrishnan) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:20 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-4 patent issues and academic contributions to the standards Message-ID: The role of MIT in establishing the music synthesis portions of the MPEG-4 standard can potentially be a model to those of the MPEG community who follow the video standards. For one thing, being a non-profit organization, MIT can donate its IP to the public good. This enhances MIT's standing (even more than what it is now :-) in the MPEG community. Secondly, in the past, most applications of cutting-edge technology in engineering was the result of years of academic research followed by commercial applications when the technology, markets and capital was ready. Sadly, this did not seem (IMHO) to be really the model for MPEG-2 (and I imagine much of MPEG-4) video compression. Most of the developments seem to have been carried out in the commercial space (starting with Bell Labs and IBM), with the resulting difficulties in patent issues. Where are the cutting-edge video compression research break-throughs from academia? Were the commercial contributions to MPEG-4 (and MPEG-2 for that matter) really that much superior to academic contributions? I really wish that: (i) academic research institutions had contributed more aggressively to the MPEG-4 video standardization process (I may be wrong here!), (ii) MPEG-4 had paid more weighting to academic contributions in deciding on the video standards (provided that they agress to release aoo their IP), and most importantly (iii) the MPEG-4 Part 10 standardization process actively recruits academic contributions and applies a **publicly stated preference for such academic contributions in making standardization decisions**. This would minimize patent issues, as well as provide more incentive for academic funding agencies that their funding for academic video compression research will result in concrete public good. Ideally, of course, MPEG-4 Part 10 would be RF! :-)) Regards: Jeyendran -----Original Message----- From: Eric Scheirer [mailto:edsmedia@alum.mit.edu] Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2024 7:17 AM To: Rob Koenen; M4IF member list (E-mail); M4IF Discussion List (E-mail) Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Re: [M4IF News] Results M4IF Fairfax Meeting Hi Rob and all, I just wanted to make a note regarding the following part of the results: > 5. In order to facilitate deployment of MPEG-4 Structured Audio > and Face/Body Animation, it will be necessary to assess the > patent situation. M4IF resolves to have a "Call for Existence > of Patents Essential to the Implementation of MPEG-4 Structured > Audio and Face/Body Animation" at the June M4IF meeting. If > such a Call results in statements by parties that believe that > such essential patents may exist, M4IF will recommend that > there be a third-party process to: > a) Determine if there are such essential patents, and, if so > b) Establish a joint licensing scheme for each of these two > pieces of technology. In particular, regarding MPEG-4 Structured Audio and MPEG-4 AudioBIFS Version 1, it is my strongly held belief that these parts of the standard are completely patent-free. That was always the intent of MIT in taking the lead role in developing and integrating technology for these parts of the standard, and MIT at least has officially released all of its pertinent technology into the public domain. Further, as an individual contributor with a fair knowledge of the patent landscape in the music-synthesis space, I continue to believe that there are no applicable patents governing the use of MPEG-4 Structured Audio. I will point out that most of the basic concepts in this standard are much older than the basic concepts in lossy audio/video coding, dating back to the work of Mathews in the early 1960s. I definitely support the statement (5) in the precise form articulated above, namely, to demand that those who believe there are patents applicable and required for the implementation of MPEG-4 Structured Audio to come forward with appropriate documentation. However, as part of this support, I must strongly articulate my belief that it is not appropriate for others to say "well, maybe there are still patents" or "nobody knows if there are patents." I say in response: *I* know, and it is the case that there are none (of course I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice). I will continue to say this and to encourage the open development and deployment of Structured Audio tools until convincing evidence by the appropriate stakeholders, not just "concern" by third parties, is presented to the contrary. Best to all, -- Eric ---- Eric D. Scheirer, Ph.D. edsmedia@alum.mit.edu +1 617 666 8905 http://sound.media.mit.edu/~eds _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From LHorn mpegla.com Mon May 6 12:38:06 2002 From: LHorn mpegla.com (Larry Horn) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:21 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing ... Message-ID: <8DDF6652F243A7419BC9BA168417EDDC11487B@oxford.mpegla.com> As many of you know from our prior emails responding to specific questions, we also see the communications and are listening. Regards, Larry Horn -----Original Message----- From: Haidamus, Ramzi [mailto:RXH@dolby.com] Sent: Monday, May 06, 2024 1:15 PM To: 'Rob Koenen'; Jeyendran Balakrishnan Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing ... Speaking for the Audio Patent Group, yes we are tuned in and we are all ears! Ramzi -----Original Message----- From: Rob Koenen [mailto:rkoenen@intertrust.com] Sent: Monday, May 06, 2024 10:02 AM To: Jeyendran Balakrishnan; 'Rob Koenen' Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing ... > I was basically hoping that MPEG-LA > regularly reads this discussion list, and that they will > clearly understand the public reaction, > and easen their position accordingly. But I guess that may be a naive > belief! They actually do read the list, and so do many licensors, but they do not always respond. We had a good disxussion last Friday when MPEG LA and representatives for the Ausdio licensing were at the special M4IF meeting on licensing. Things are still in flux. My advice to contact MPEG LA was also aimed at those that do not send their opinion to this list. You will see very few official statements fromlarge corporations on lists like these, even thought they may have (strong) opinions. Larry Horn (LHorn@mpegla.com) is MPEG LA's VP of licensing who works on MPEG-4 licensing. Regards, Rob > > Can you let the list know how one may forward comments to MPEG-LA? > > Regards: > Jeyendran > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Koenen [mailto:rkoenen@intertrust.com] > Sent: Friday, May 03, 2024 8:00 PM > To: Yuval Fisher > Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] To those concerned about > MPEG- 4 Licensing ... > > > > > As for me, I'm looking at MPEG-4 Part 10 and hoping > > that it is > > > patent-free ;-) > > > > > > I wouldn't hold your breath. Many companies are nervous about > > submarine > > patents. There's a strong anti-free-license movement in MPEG. > > Sweeping statements like these are very unhelpful. > > It may indeed be unlikley that full JVT codec is going to be RF > (Royalty-Free). There is, however, a strong desire among many parties > to try and establish a RF baseline. There is an ongoing effort to see > how such an RF baseline could be established. It is area in which > people like to maneuver carefully, for obvious reasons. > > 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 -------------------- This message (including any attachments) may contain confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose. If you are not the intended recipient, delete this message. If you are not the intended recipient, disclosing, copying, distributing, or taking any action based on this message is strictly prohibited. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From neff PacketVideo.COM Mon May 6 12:21:24 2002 From: neff PacketVideo.COM (Ralph Neff) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:21 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-4 patent issues and academic contribution s to the standards Message-ID: <72263E8E8622D611975C0002B32C19D837E84C@misty.packetvideo.com> Hi all, I identify with Jeyendran's remarks, having attended MPEG-4 on behalf of U.C. Berkeley (in the 'good old days'). I think it would be quite valuable for MPEG to make a special effort to invite academic institutions to contribute. This happens to some extent (a call for proposals is generally open to the public), and some universities do attend. But I think more could be done to lower the barrier and so utilize the creativity, hard work, and non-industrial perspective that academia offers. One problem we had back then was that standards work is very costly, and schools were treated in the same way as for-profit companies in terms of meeting fees (when they were charged) and attendence requirements. Maybe this has changed in the past few years, I haven't followed it. Also, some of it was imposed on us by the U.S. National Body rather than MPEG. In any case, it would be very helpful if both MPEG and the national bodies could in some way lower the cost of participation for universities and non-profit research institutions. M4IF of course has done this already with the 'associate' level of membership. -Ralph -----Original Message----- From: Jeyendran Balakrishnan [mailto:jp@skystream.com] Sent: Monday, May 06, 2024 10:28 AM To: 'Eric Scheirer'; Rob Koenen; M4IF member list (E-mail); M4IF Discussion List (E-mail) Subject: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-4 patent issues and academic contributions to the standards The role of MIT in establishing the music synthesis portions of the MPEG-4 standard can potentially be a model to those of the MPEG community who follow the video standards. For one thing, being a non-profit organization, MIT can donate its IP to the public good. This enhances MIT's standing (even more than what it is now :-) in the MPEG community. Secondly, in the past, most applications of cutting-edge technology in engineering was the result of years of academic research followed by commercial applications when the technology, markets and capital was ready. Sadly, this did not seem (IMHO) to be really the model for MPEG-2 (and I imagine much of MPEG-4) video compression. Most of the developments seem to have been carried out in the commercial space (starting with Bell Labs and IBM), with the resulting difficulties in patent issues. Where are the cutting-edge video compression research break-throughs from academia? Were the commercial contributions to MPEG-4 (and MPEG-2 for that matter) really that much superior to academic contributions? I really wish that: (i) academic research institutions had contributed more aggressively to the MPEG-4 video standardization process (I may be wrong here!), (ii) MPEG-4 had paid more weighting to academic contributions in deciding on the video standards (provided that they agress to release aoo their IP), and most importantly (iii) the MPEG-4 Part 10 standardization process actively recruits academic contributions and applies a **publicly stated preference for such academic contributions in making standardization decisions**. This would minimize patent issues, as well as provide more incentive for academic funding agencies that their funding for academic video compression research will result in concrete public good. Ideally, of course, MPEG-4 Part 10 would be RF! :-)) Regards: Jeyendran -----Original Message----- From: Eric Scheirer [mailto:edsmedia@alum.mit.edu] Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2024 7:17 AM To: Rob Koenen; M4IF member list (E-mail); M4IF Discussion List (E-mail) Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Re: [M4IF News] Results M4IF Fairfax Meeting Hi Rob and all, I just wanted to make a note regarding the following part of the results: > 5. In order to facilitate deployment of MPEG-4 Structured Audio > and Face/Body Animation, it will be necessary to assess the > patent situation. M4IF resolves to have a "Call for Existence > of Patents Essential to the Implementation of MPEG-4 Structured > Audio and Face/Body Animation" at the June M4IF meeting. If > such a Call results in statements by parties that believe that > such essential patents may exist, M4IF will recommend that > there be a third-party process to: > a) Determine if there are such essential patents, and, if so > b) Establish a joint licensing scheme for each of these two > pieces of technology. In particular, regarding MPEG-4 Structured Audio and MPEG-4 AudioBIFS Version 1, it is my strongly held belief that these parts of the standard are completely patent-free. That was always the intent of MIT in taking the lead role in developing and integrating technology for these parts of the standard, and MIT at least has officially released all of its pertinent technology into the public domain. Further, as an individual contributor with a fair knowledge of the patent landscape in the music-synthesis space, I continue to believe that there are no applicable patents governing the use of MPEG-4 Structured Audio. I will point out that most of the basic concepts in this standard are much older than the basic concepts in lossy audio/video coding, dating back to the work of Mathews in the early 1960s. I definitely support the statement (5) in the precise form articulated above, namely, to demand that those who believe there are patents applicable and required for the implementation of MPEG-4 Structured Audio to come forward with appropriate documentation. However, as part of this support, I must strongly articulate my belief that it is not appropriate for others to say "well, maybe there are still patents" or "nobody knows if there are patents." I say in response: *I* know, and it is the case that there are none (of course I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice). I will continue to say this and to encourage the open development and deployment of Structured Audio tools until convincing evidence by the appropriate stakeholders, not just "concern" by third parties, is presented to the contrary. Best to all, -- Eric ---- Eric D. Scheirer, Ph.D. edsmedia@alum.mit.edu +1 617 666 8905 http://sound.media.mit.edu/~eds _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From wjf NetworkXXIII.com Mon May 6 15:07:29 2002 From: wjf NetworkXXIII.com (William J. Fulco) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:21 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Re: [M4IF News] To those concerned about MPEG-4 Licensing ... In-Reply-To: <3CD6BAC4.32FA72C0@wmr.com> Message-ID: Richard, Good points.... I don't want to put words into Larry's mouth about the "motives" of MPEG-LA - however it seems to me that if one of the goals of the "usage-fee" is to prevent extant MPEG-2 application-income from drying up by being replaced by a new-and-better MPEG-4 system - then perhaps MPEG-LA should only have the usage fee for those types of applications e.g. DVD ... They can let the MPEG-4 market grow for a (quite a) while in the other (often unknown) market spaces and see how it goes. That way MPEG-LA won't LOSE any money on MPEG-4 - and in fact, the conversion (gracefully) of the MPEG-2 infrastructure to an equally-royalty-bearing MPEG-4 infrastructure could make MPEG-LA money. The possible increased functionality of MPEG-4 will drive lots of new MPEG-2 type applications...(perhaps they'll have to pro-rate-up the use-fee to account for better compression in MPEG-4 than MPEG-2 :-) As for NEW uses of MPEG-4 - the Internet and wireless and such - that should be usage-fee-free for the time being and the market should be allowed to develop. Basically what's going on is typical in 3rd-world countries as they "convert" to a "market economy." Since there is no current market - YET - there is no way to price things in a rational or even a sane way. This is like in the old USSR as they converted their infrastructure to "the market." How do you "value" a company when there's no stock market to trade-on? What happens in this case is all the parties to the negotiation argue from the point-of-view of "preventing the worst-case scenario" -- the buyers all say "it's worth nothing, so I'll pay little" - and the sellers all say "it's worth a bazillion dollars, so I'll charge a fortune" - however without an actual market in place for (at least comparable) things - the "value" is all sheer speculation on everyone's part. In the case of existing MPEG-2 applications - there IS a market - we KNOW how much profit is in a DVD or a satellite-uplink or a piece of post-house editing gear - so we KNOW how to price the royalties for comparable applications. MPEG-LA could start there. Price MPEG-4 (yes, with use-fees) comparable to MPEG-2 for the identical application-spaces - there is already an infrastructure to collect/pay the royalties - and everyone knows what to expect and what they will be faced with if they want to transition EXISTING MPEG-2 applications to MPEG-4... In the case of "movies on demand" or "interactive TV" or - I don't know - "trans-galactic wireless Internet peer-to-peer music sharing" we have NO idea of what's comparable in "the market" because there IS NO market. So, let a market grow and develop. Let the applications happen. Let the market players decide on what applications are and are not worth it - in a technical and business sense. Then after a moratorium period - a few years - 5 years - whatever - MPEG-LA can decide on what makes sense in licensing. The "assurances" can come from a "sure knowledge" that there will be a time-of-licensing at date certain in the future. As for the Digital Cinema, well - that might fall into a gray-area - it's conceivable that the infrastructure for DC is limited enough and the players in the field already have enough visibility into the LIKELY economics that a rational/sane license can be had for this category right now by basically saying "well, lets start from the assumption that we were using MPEG-2 for this - and see how the market economics work". Alternatively, the players in DC tend to be rather large and perhaps able to do their own licensing deal outside the pool... but I digress... ++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 > [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Richard mizer > Sent: Monday, May 06, 2024 10:18 AM > To: Rob Koenen > Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] Re: [M4IF News] To those concerned about > MPEG-4 Licensing ... From omid.moghadam intel.com Mon May 6 15:47:49 2002 From: omid.moghadam intel.com (Moghadam, Omid) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:21 2003 Subject: [M4IFmembers] RE: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-4 patent issues and aca demic contribution s to the standards Message-ID: <01BDB7EEF8D4D3119D95009027AE99951BB83C14@fmsmsx33.fm.intel.com> Ralph, I am not sure if a university like MIT will donate any IP to a standard. Most large research universities have patent departments that are larger than most of the legal departments of the Fortune 500. They are uncompressing in their IP position, because they get measured on how much licensing revenue they can generate. I would like to point that Columbia University represented by it's trustees (assignees of all of Columbia's patents) was one of the original five members of MPEG2 patent pool. There are also quite a number of US and international universities attending and making contributions to MPEG today. Regards, Omid Moghadam Intel -----Original Message----- From: Ralph Neff [mailto:neff@packetvideo.com] Sent: Monday, May 06, 2024 11:21 AM To: 'Jeyendran Balakrishnan' Cc: M4IF member list (E-mail); M4IF Discussion List (E-mail); Ralph Neff Subject: [M4IFmembers] RE: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-4 patent issues and academic contribution s to the standards Hi all, I identify with Jeyendran's remarks, having attended MPEG-4 on behalf of U.C. Berkeley (in the 'good old days'). I think it would be quite valuable for MPEG to make a special effort to invite academic institutions to contribute. This happens to some extent (a call for proposals is generally open to the public), and some universities do attend. But I think more could be done to lower the barrier and so utilize the creativity, hard work, and non-industrial perspective that academia offers. One problem we had back then was that standards work is very costly, and schools were treated in the same way as for-profit companies in terms of meeting fees (when they were charged) and attendence requirements. Maybe this has changed in the past few years, I haven't followed it. Also, some of it was imposed on us by the U.S. National Body rather than MPEG. In any case, it would be very helpful if both MPEG and the national bodies could in some way lower the cost of participation for universities and non-profit research institutions. M4IF of course has done this already with the 'associate' level of membership. -Ralph -----Original Message----- From: Jeyendran Balakrishnan [mailto:jp@skystream.com] Sent: Monday, May 06, 2024 10:28 AM To: 'Eric Scheirer'; Rob Koenen; M4IF member list (E-mail); M4IF Discussion List (E-mail) Subject: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-4 patent issues and academic contributions to the standards The role of MIT in establishing the music synthesis portions of the MPEG-4 standard can potentially be a model to those of the MPEG community who follow the video standards. For one thing, being a non-profit organization, MIT can donate its IP to the public good. This enhances MIT's standing (even more than what it is now :-) in the MPEG community. Secondly, in the past, most applications of cutting-edge technology in engineering was the result of years of academic research followed by commercial applications when the technology, markets and capital was ready. Sadly, this did not seem (IMHO) to be really the model for MPEG-2 (and I imagine much of MPEG-4) video compression. Most of the developments seem to have been carried out in the commercial space (starting with Bell Labs and IBM), with the resulting difficulties in patent issues. Where are the cutting-edge video compression research break-throughs from academia? Were the commercial contributions to MPEG-4 (and MPEG-2 for that matter) really that much superior to academic contributions? I really wish that: (i) academic research institutions had contributed more aggressively to the MPEG-4 video standardization process (I may be wrong here!), (ii) MPEG-4 had paid more weighting to academic contributions in deciding on the video standards (provided that they agress to release aoo their IP), and most importantly (iii) the MPEG-4 Part 10 standardization process actively recruits academic contributions and applies a **publicly stated preference for such academic contributions in making standardization decisions**. This would minimize patent issues, as well as provide more incentive for academic funding agencies that their funding for academic video compression research will result in concrete public good. Ideally, of course, MPEG-4 Part 10 would be RF! :-)) Regards: Jeyendran -----Original Message----- From: Eric Scheirer [mailto:edsmedia@alum.mit.edu] Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2024 7:17 AM To: Rob Koenen; M4IF member list (E-mail); M4IF Discussion List (E-mail) Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Re: [M4IF News] Results M4IF Fairfax Meeting Hi Rob and all, I just wanted to make a note regarding the following part of the results: > 5. In order to facilitate deployment of MPEG-4 Structured Audio > and Face/Body Animation, it will be necessary to assess the > patent situation. M4IF resolves to have a "Call for Existence > of Patents Essential to the Implementation of MPEG-4 Structured > Audio and Face/Body Animation" at the June M4IF meeting. If > such a Call results in statements by parties that believe that > such essential patents may exist, M4IF will recommend that > there be a third-party process to: > a) Determine if there are such essential patents, and, if so > b) Establish a joint licensing scheme for each of these two > pieces of technology. In particular, regarding MPEG-4 Structured Audio and MPEG-4 AudioBIFS Version 1, it is my strongly held belief that these parts of the standard are completely patent-free. That was always the intent of MIT in taking the lead role in developing and integrating technology for these parts of the standard, and MIT at least has officially released all of its pertinent technology into the public domain. Further, as an individual contributor with a fair knowledge of the patent landscape in the music-synthesis space, I continue to believe that there are no applicable patents governing the use of MPEG-4 Structured Audio. I will point out that most of the basic concepts in this standard are much older than the basic concepts in lossy audio/video coding, dating back to the work of Mathews in the early 1960s. I definitely support the statement (5) in the precise form articulated above, namely, to demand that those who believe there are patents applicable and required for the implementation of MPEG-4 Structured Audio to come forward with appropriate documentation. However, as part of this support, I must strongly articulate my belief that it is not appropriate for others to say "well, maybe there are still patents" or "nobody knows if there are patents." I say in response: *I* know, and it is the case that there are none (of course I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice). I will continue to say this and to encourage the open development and deployment of Structured Audio tools until convincing evidence by the appropriate stakeholders, not just "concern" by third parties, is presented to the contrary. Best to all, -- Eric ---- Eric D. Scheirer, Ph.D. edsmedia@alum.mit.edu +1 617 666 8905 http://sound.media.mit.edu/~eds _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ M4IF Members information list M4IFmembers@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/m4ifmembers From rob.koenen m4if.org Tue May 7 00:57:23 2002 From: rob.koenen m4if.org (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:21 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing ... In-Reply-To: <3CD6BB24.9C6EFAEE@wmr.com> Message-ID: <000601c1f594$898e64e0$4345fea9@epr.com> Richard wrote: > If I have any message to the license holders it is this: > > give it away for now...get everyone hooked...and then renegotiate licensing > fees down the road when there is something out there to collect....otherwise > all of us have wasted all our time, and you won't make a penny. The licensors had already announced that there would be a grace period. Thinking as a potential licensee, I would rather know right away what I am dealing with before making major investment decisions, than having it free now but with unknown fees down the road. Having it clear as soon as possible is the best option for the entire market. Best, Rob From evain ebu.ch Tue May 7 10:23:09 2002 From: evain ebu.ch (Evain Jean-Pierre) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:21 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing ... Message-ID: Thank-you Rob for the clear statement. I think that you are totally right. Jean-Pierre -----Original Message----- From: Rob Koenen [mailto:rob.koenen@m4if.org] Sent: mardi, 7. mai 2002 08:57 To: ramizer@wmr.com; 'Rob Koenen' Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing ... Richard wrote: > If I have any message to the license holders it is this: > > give it away for now...get everyone hooked...and then renegotiate licensing > fees down the road when there is something out there to collect....otherwise > all of us have wasted all our time, and you won't make a penny. The licensors had already announced that there would be a grace period. Thinking as a potential licensee, I would rather know right away what I am dealing with before making major investment decisions, than having it free now but with unknown fees down the road. Having it clear as soon as possible is the best option for the entire market. Best, Rob _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com ********************************************************************** From iahmad cse.uta.edu Mon May 6 19:09:33 2002 From: iahmad cse.uta.edu (Dr.Ishfaq Ahmad) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:21 2003 Subject: [M4IFmembers] RE: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-4 patent issues and academic contribution s to the standards Message-ID: <07ee01c1f553$15d054f0$47196b81@uta.edu> Dear all: Greetings! I wanna echo the comments by Ralph. I feel academics can make significant contributions to standards. I only wish licensing issues would be more relaxed. We at the Multimedia Technology Research Center in Hong Kong University of Science of technology made several contributions in terms of standards, basic research, and working the industry. I, as the director of the center, have now moved to the University of Texas at Arlington, and I plan to continue and leverage upon where I left. I welcome collaboration from academia and industry. We are particularly interesting in efficient coding algorithms, transcoding, content creation, authoring tools, servers, and pervasive computing application of MPEG-4. best regards, Ishfaq Ahmad, Ph.D Professor, Department of Computer Science and Engineering University of Texas at Arlington Box 19015, 248 D/E Nedderman Hall 416 Yates Street, Arlington Texas 76019-0015 Office: 817 272 1526 Fax: 817 272 3784 Cell: 817 366 2296 http://ranger.uta.edu/~iahmad ----- Original Message ----- From: "Moghadam, Omid" To: "Ralph Neff" ; "'Jeyendran Balakrishnan'" Cc: "M4IF member list (E-mail)" ; "M4IF Discussion List (E-mail)" Sent: Monday, May 06, 2024 4:47 PM Subject: RE: [M4IFmembers] RE: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-4 patent issues and academic contribution s to the standards > > Ralph, > > I am not sure if a university like MIT will donate any IP to a standard. > Most large research universities have patent departments that are larger > than most of the legal departments of the Fortune 500. They are > uncompressing in their IP position, because they get measured on how much > licensing revenue they can generate. > > I would like to point that Columbia University represented by it's trustees > (assignees of all of Columbia's patents) was one of the original five > members of MPEG2 patent pool. > > There are also quite a number of US and international universities attending > and making contributions to MPEG today. > > Regards, > Omid Moghadam > Intel > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ralph Neff [mailto:neff@packetvideo.com] > Sent: Monday, May 06, 2024 11:21 AM > To: 'Jeyendran Balakrishnan' > Cc: M4IF member list (E-mail); M4IF Discussion List (E-mail); Ralph Neff > Subject: [M4IFmembers] RE: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-4 patent issues and > academic contribution s to the standards > > > > Hi all, > > I identify with Jeyendran's remarks, having attended MPEG-4 > on behalf of U.C. Berkeley (in the 'good old days'). I think > it would be quite valuable for MPEG to make a special effort > to invite academic institutions to contribute. This happens > to some extent (a call for proposals is generally open to the > public), and some universities do attend. But I think more > could be done to lower the barrier and so utilize the creativity, > hard work, and non-industrial perspective that academia offers. > > One problem we had back then was that standards work is very > costly, and schools were treated in the same way as for-profit > companies in terms of meeting fees (when they were charged) > and attendence requirements. Maybe this has changed in the > past few years, I haven't followed it. Also, some of it > was imposed on us by the U.S. National Body rather than MPEG. > > In any case, it would be very helpful if both MPEG and the > national bodies could in some way lower the cost of > participation for universities and non-profit research > institutions. M4IF of course has done this already with the > 'associate' level of membership. > > -Ralph > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeyendran Balakrishnan [mailto:jp@skystream.com] > Sent: Monday, May 06, 2024 10:28 AM > To: 'Eric Scheirer'; Rob Koenen; M4IF member list (E-mail); M4IF > Discussion List (E-mail) > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-4 patent issues and academic contributions > to the standards > > > > The role of MIT in establishing the music synthesis portions of the > MPEG-4 standard can potentially be a model to those of the MPEG > community who follow the video standards. > > For one thing, being a non-profit organization, MIT can donate its IP to the > > public good. This enhances MIT's standing (even more than what it is now :-) > > in the MPEG community. > > Secondly, in the past, most applications of cutting-edge technology in > engineering was > the result of years of academic research followed by commercial applications > when the > technology, markets and capital was ready. Sadly, this did not seem (IMHO) > to be really the > model for MPEG-2 (and I imagine much of MPEG-4) video compression. Most of > the > developments seem to have been carried out in the commercial space (starting > with > Bell Labs and IBM), with the resulting difficulties in patent issues. > > Where are the cutting-edge video compression research break-throughs from > academia? > > Were the commercial contributions to MPEG-4 (and MPEG-2 for that matter) > really that > much superior to academic contributions? > > I really wish that: > > (i) academic research institutions had contributed more aggressively > to the MPEG-4 video standardization process (I may be wrong here!), > > (ii) MPEG-4 had paid more weighting to academic contributions in deciding > on the video standards (provided that they agress to release aoo their IP), > and most importantly > > (iii) the MPEG-4 Part 10 standardization process actively recruits academic > contributions and applies a **publicly stated preference for such academic > contributions > in making standardization decisions**. This would minimize patent issues, > as well as provide more incentive for academic funding agencies that their > funding > for academic video compression research will result in concrete public good. > > Ideally, of course, MPEG-4 Part 10 would be RF! :-)) > > Regards: > Jeyendran > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Scheirer [mailto:edsmedia@alum.mit.edu] > Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2024 7:17 AM > To: Rob Koenen; M4IF member list (E-mail); M4IF Discussion List (E-mail) > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Re: [M4IF News] Results M4IF Fairfax Meeting > > > Hi Rob and all, > > I just wanted to make a note regarding the following part of > the results: > > > 5. In order to facilitate deployment of MPEG-4 Structured Audio > > and Face/Body Animation, it will be necessary to assess the > > patent situation. M4IF resolves to have a "Call for Existence > > of Patents Essential to the Implementation of MPEG-4 Structured > > Audio and Face/Body Animation" at the June M4IF meeting. If > > such a Call results in statements by parties that believe that > > such essential patents may exist, M4IF will recommend that > > there be a third-party process to: > > a) Determine if there are such essential patents, and, if so > > b) Establish a joint licensing scheme for each of these two > > pieces of technology. > > In particular, regarding MPEG-4 Structured Audio and MPEG-4 > AudioBIFS Version 1, it is my strongly held belief that these > parts of the standard are completely patent-free. That was > always the intent of MIT in taking the lead role in developing > and integrating technology for these parts of the standard, > and MIT at least has officially released all of its pertinent > technology into the public domain. > > Further, as an individual contributor with a fair knowledge > of the patent landscape in the music-synthesis space, I > continue to believe that there are no applicable patents > governing the use of MPEG-4 Structured Audio. I will point out > that most of the basic concepts in this standard are much > older than the basic concepts in lossy audio/video coding, > dating back to the work of Mathews in the early 1960s. > > I definitely support the statement (5) in the precise form > articulated above, namely, to demand that those who believe > there are patents applicable and required for the implementation > of MPEG-4 Structured Audio to come forward with appropriate > documentation. However, as part of this support, I must > strongly articulate my belief that it is not appropriate > for others to say "well, maybe there are still patents" or > "nobody knows if there are patents." > > I say in response: *I* know, and it is the case that there > are none (of course I am not a lawyer and this is not > legal advice). I will continue to say this and to encourage > the open development and deployment of Structured Audio > tools until convincing evidence by the appropriate stakeholders, > not just "concern" by third parties, is presented to the > contrary. > > Best to all, > > -- Eric > > ---- > Eric D. Scheirer, Ph.D. > edsmedia@alum.mit.edu > +1 617 666 8905 > http://sound.media.mit.edu/~eds > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ > M4IF Members information list > M4IFmembers@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/m4ifmembers > _______________________________________________ > M4IF Members information list > M4IFmembers@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/m4ifmembers > From rkoenen intertrust.com Tue May 7 13:32:58 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:21 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] Results M4IF Fairfax Meeting Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF5380@exchange.epr.com> Eric, thanks for the response. You read the resolution correct. As far as the people involved can tell, Structured Audio does not seem to infringe any patents. This resolution seeks to confirm this. If no evidence is submitted to M4IF, then Structured Audio implementers will be able to work with just a little more comfort. The same applies to Face and Body animation technology providers. In the event that some evidence that there may still be patents *does* surface , we will need to go the way of trying to get someone to organize a pool -- but we do not anticipate this. Statements like "I believe there are still patents" without further qualification will indeed be unhelpful. Thanks, Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Scheirer [mailto:edsmedia@alum.mit.edu] > Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2024 7:17 > To: Rob Koenen; M4IF member list (E-mail); M4IF Discussion > List (E-mail) > Subject: Re: [M4IF News] Results M4IF Fairfax Meeting > > > Hi Rob and all, > > I just wanted to make a note regarding the following part of > the results: > > > 5. In order to facilitate deployment of MPEG-4 Structured Audio > > and Face/Body Animation, it will be necessary to assess the > > patent situation. M4IF resolves to have a "Call for Existence > > of Patents Essential to the Implementation of MPEG-4 Structured > > Audio and Face/Body Animation" at the June M4IF meeting. If > > such a Call results in statements by parties that believe that > > such essential patents may exist, M4IF will recommend that > > there be a third-party process to: > > a) Determine if there are such essential patents, and, if so > > b) Establish a joint licensing scheme for each of these two > > pieces of technology. > > In particular, regarding MPEG-4 Structured Audio and MPEG-4 > AudioBIFS Version 1, it is my strongly held belief that these > parts of the standard are completely patent-free. That was > always the intent of MIT in taking the lead role in developing > and integrating technology for these parts of the standard, > and MIT at least has officially released all of its pertinent > technology into the public domain. > > Further, as an individual contributor with a fair knowledge > of the patent landscape in the music-synthesis space, I > continue to believe that there are no applicable patents > governing the use of MPEG-4 Structured Audio. I will point out > that most of the basic concepts in this standard are much > older than the basic concepts in lossy audio/video coding, > dating back to the work of Mathews in the early 1960s. > > I definitely support the statement (5) in the precise form > articulated above, namely, to demand that those who believe > there are patents applicable and required for the implementation > of MPEG-4 Structured Audio to come forward with appropriate > documentation. However, as part of this support, I must > strongly articulate my belief that it is not appropriate > for others to say "well, maybe there are still patents" or > "nobody knows if there are patents." > > I say in response: *I* know, and it is the case that there > are none (of course I am not a lawyer and this is not > legal advice). I will continue to say this and to encourage > the open development and deployment of Structured Audio > tools until convincing evidence by the appropriate stakeholders, > not just "concern" by third parties, is presented to the > contrary. > > Best to all, > > -- Eric > > ---- > Eric D. Scheirer, Ph.D. > edsmedia@alum.mit.edu > +1 617 666 8905 > http://sound.media.mit.edu/~eds > > From sm dicas.de Tue May 7 23:05:16 2002 From: sm dicas.de (Moeritz, Sebastian) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:21 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Dispute won't clock QuickTime 6 -- ZDNET Message-ID: <005101c1f60a$e4ab6c30$688f5dc2@London> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-901282.html Dispute won't clock QuickTime 6 By Ian Fried Special to ZDNet News May 7, 2002, 9:20 AM PT Apple Computer said Monday that it would release QuickTime 6 late this summer, even though it has yet to resolve a licensing dispute over a new file format it plans to adopt. Apple, which is building QuickTime 6 around the MPEG-4 file format, is one of several tech companies that balked at a licensing agreement that would require many of those that broadcast using the format to pay a royalty. In February, Apple delayed QuickTime 6 because of the dispute. Apple said there has been progress from MPEG LA, which licenses the format, but said that a final deal has not been worked out. "It just means we're very hopeful," Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller said in an interview. Schiller said things were "moving in the right direction." Apple plans to release QuickTime 6 as part of an update, code-named Jaguar, to its Mac OS X operating system. From rkoenen intertrust.com Tue May 7 18:08:52 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:22 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Dispute won't clock QuickTime 6 -- ZDNET Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF538B@exchange.epr.com> Thanks Sebastian. The article was already on www.m4if.org For outsider on the talks between licensors / MPEG LA and their customers, it is good to understand that progress is being made. This is in line with the understanding gained during the Fairfax meeting. A public, itemized summary of the Fairfax discussions is online here: http://www.m4if.org/public/documents/vault/m4-out-20017.php Kind Regards, Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Moeritz, Sebastian [mailto:sm@dicas.de] > Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2024 14:05 > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Dispute won't clock QuickTime 6 -- ZDNET > > > > > > http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-901282.html > > Dispute won't clock QuickTime 6 > > By Ian Fried > Special to ZDNet News > May 7, 2002, 9:20 AM PT > > Apple Computer said Monday that it would release QuickTime 6 late this > summer, even though it has yet to resolve a licensing dispute > over a new > file format it plans to adopt. > Apple, which is building QuickTime 6 around the MPEG-4 file > format, is one > of several tech companies that balked at a licensing > agreement that would > require many of those that broadcast using the format to pay > a royalty. > > In February, Apple delayed QuickTime 6 because of the dispute. > > Apple said there has been progress from MPEG LA, which > licenses the format, > but said that a final deal has not been worked out. > "It just means we're very hopeful," Apple Senior Vice President Phil > Schiller said in an interview. Schiller said things were > "moving in the > right direction." > Apple plans to release QuickTime 6 as part of an update, > code-named Jaguar, > to its Mac OS X operating system. > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From dan on2.com Tue May 7 22:24:39 2002 From: dan on2.com (Daniel B. Miller) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:22 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] Results M4IF Fairfax Meeting In-Reply-To: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF5380@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: <200205080124.g481OeGR016627@on2.com> it's interesting that structured audio and face/body animation, both of which I would expect to be very leading-edge technology, appear to be patent free, whereas audio and video coding, which are based on concepts more than half a century old, are so heavily encumbered. I guess no one thought they would get rich off structured audio. ___ Dan Miller (++,) CTO and founder, On2 Technologies On Tue, 7 May 2002, Rob Koenen wrote: > Eric, > > thanks for the response. You read the resolution correct. > As far as the people involved can tell, Structured Audio does > not seem to infringe any patents. This resolution seeks to confirm > this. If no evidence is submitted to M4IF, then Structured Audio > implementers will be able to work with just a little more comfort. > The same applies to Face and Body animation technology providers. > > In the event that some evidence that there may still be patents > *does* surface , we will need to go the way of trying to get > someone to organize a pool -- but we do not anticipate this. > > Statements like "I believe there are still patents" without further > qualification will indeed be unhelpful. > > Thanks, > Rob > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Eric Scheirer [mailto:edsmedia@alum.mit.edu] > > Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2024 7:17 > > To: Rob Koenen; M4IF member list (E-mail); M4IF Discussion > > List (E-mail) > > Subject: Re: [M4IF News] Results M4IF Fairfax Meeting > > > > > > Hi Rob and all, > > > > I just wanted to make a note regarding the following part of > > the results: > > > > > 5. In order to facilitate deployment of MPEG-4 Structured Audio > > > and Face/Body Animation, it will be necessary to assess the > > > patent situation. M4IF resolves to have a "Call for Existence > > > of Patents Essential to the Implementation of MPEG-4 Structured > > > Audio and Face/Body Animation" at the June M4IF meeting. If > > > such a Call results in statements by parties that believe that > > > such essential patents may exist, M4IF will recommend that > > > there be a third-party process to: > > > a) Determine if there are such essential patents, and, if so > > > b) Establish a joint licensing scheme for each of these two > > > pieces of technology. > > > > In particular, regarding MPEG-4 Structured Audio and MPEG-4 > > AudioBIFS Version 1, it is my strongly held belief that these > > parts of the standard are completely patent-free. That was > > always the intent of MIT in taking the lead role in developing > > and integrating technology for these parts of the standard, > > and MIT at least has officially released all of its pertinent > > technology into the public domain. > > > > Further, as an individual contributor with a fair knowledge > > of the patent landscape in the music-synthesis space, I > > continue to believe that there are no applicable patents > > governing the use of MPEG-4 Structured Audio. I will point out > > that most of the basic concepts in this standard are much > > older than the basic concepts in lossy audio/video coding, > > dating back to the work of Mathews in the early 1960s. > > > > I definitely support the statement (5) in the precise form > > articulated above, namely, to demand that those who believe > > there are patents applicable and required for the implementation > > of MPEG-4 Structured Audio to come forward with appropriate > > documentation. However, as part of this support, I must > > strongly articulate my belief that it is not appropriate > > for others to say "well, maybe there are still patents" or > > "nobody knows if there are patents." > > > > I say in response: *I* know, and it is the case that there > > are none (of course I am not a lawyer and this is not > > legal advice). I will continue to say this and to encourage > > the open development and deployment of Structured Audio > > tools until convincing evidence by the appropriate stakeholders, > > not just "concern" by third parties, is presented to the > > contrary. > > > > Best to all, > > > > -- Eric > > > > ---- > > Eric D. Scheirer, Ph.D. > > edsmedia@alum.mit.edu > > +1 617 666 8905 > > http://sound.media.mit.edu/~eds > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From dan on2.com Tue May 7 22:40:57 2002 From: dan on2.com (Daniel B. Miller) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:22 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Dispute won't clock QuickTime 6 -- ZDNET In-Reply-To: <005101c1f60a$e4ab6c30$688f5dc2@London> Message-ID: <200205080140.g481evGR016925@on2.com> hmm... "very hopeful" is the kind of language you hear from negotiators who know there is no hope of a solution anytime soon. ___ Dan Miller (++,) CTO and founder, On2 Technologies On Tue, 7 May 2002, Moeritz, Sebastian wrote: > > > > http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-901282.html > > Dispute won't clock QuickTime 6 > > By Ian Fried > Special to ZDNet News > May 7, 2002, 9:20 AM PT > > Apple Computer said Monday that it would release QuickTime 6 late this > summer, even though it has yet to resolve a licensing dispute over a new > file format it plans to adopt. > Apple, which is building QuickTime 6 around the MPEG-4 file format, is one > of several tech companies that balked at a licensing agreement that would > require many of those that broadcast using the format to pay a royalty. > > In February, Apple delayed QuickTime 6 because of the dispute. > > Apple said there has been progress from MPEG LA, which licenses the format, > but said that a final deal has not been worked out. > "It just means we're very hopeful," Apple Senior Vice President Phil > Schiller said in an interview. Schiller said things were "moving in the > right direction." > Apple plans to release QuickTime 6 as part of an update, code-named Jaguar, > to its Mac OS X operating system. > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From wjf NetworkXXIII.com Tue May 7 20:05:17 2002 From: wjf NetworkXXIII.com (William J. Fulco) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:22 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] Results M4IF Fairfax Meeting In-Reply-To: <200205080124.g481OeGR016627@on2.com> Message-ID: Dan, I don't know if it's a matter of "getting rich" - face/body animation and structured audio need computer-power to be useful - and to do a good job, a decent amount of it (to generate some of this stuff)... video can be done in analog without even a computer - and so can video-compression... there is (and has been for quite a few decades) a large market for video stuff - cameras, transmission, broadcast, storage etc etc - all which drove a lot of companies to solve real world problems for things like compressing video... and companies - especially big companies like to protect their IP and can afford to patent things -- smaller firms or universities tend to want to be more "open" about IP and the last few decades, getting a patent is not something Joe-inventor or running-as-fast-as-I-can entrepreneur is likely to be able to afford. On the animation/structured audio front - those have tended to be the purview of "university" and "artistic" types - not the "real business" types like video and natural audio... ++Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org > [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Daniel B. Miller > Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2024 6:25 PM > To: Rob Koenen > Cc: 'Eric Scheirer'; M4IF Discussion List (E-mail); > discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org > Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] Results M4IF Fairfax Meeting > > > it's interesting that structured audio and face/body animation, both of > which I would expect to be very leading-edge technology, appear to be > patent free, whereas audio and video coding, which are based on concepts > more than half a century old, are so heavily encumbered. > > I guess no one thought they would get rich off structured audio. > > ___ Dan Miller > (++,) CTO and founder, On2 Technologies From wjf NetworkXXIII.com Wed May 8 02:14:03 2002 From: wjf NetworkXXIII.com (William J. Fulco) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:22 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing ... In-Reply-To: <000601c1f594$898e64e0$4345fea9@epr.com> Message-ID: Rob, > The licensors had already announced that there would be a grace period. Yes- but have the been explicit as to how long and under what terms? I'm suggesting a long-ish "grace period" - given it takes years to develop a market. > Thinking as a potential licensee, I would rather know right away what I am > dealing with before making major investment decisions, than having it free > now but with unknown fees down the road. Yes - I'm also suggesting that the structure of the fees for some things like "MPEG-2 replacement" type uses be defined early and rationally. More esoteric things like "movies on demand" or "Surf-beach WebCam network" can be fleshed out with some guidelines - without the exact details. Or - you can put a "reasonable" license in place for a fixed period of time - say 5 years - "$0.25/encoder" and same for decoder now - and that license will be good for 5 or 6 or 10 years. Then you can have a "renegotiation" phase... > Having it clear as soon as possible is the best option for the > entire market. Yes - but what I'm saying is that when there is no market you can not honestly tell what something is worth - and when the "time comes" - some applications will die... some will feel ripped-off and some will say "cool, not as bad as we thought" - if we believe in the concept that it is THEIR IP and they do get to charge whatever they want - then if they get greedy later on and kill a golden-egg-producing-goose - then so be it - they're stupid and nuts... on the other hand, we KNOW that the fees needed to launch a market with little money in it have to be much lower than what the market can sustain later on.... so like the baseball player that has a couple good years and wants a more money at contract-renegotiation time - it's his right to ask and the team's right to pay or not. In short to launch the market, we need a "cheap" (possibly too cheap) license to get going - and IF / WHEN the market develops later on, there will be money available for the IP holders to get greedy with - or not. Either way, there will be more information to make a rational decision in the matter. If you're going to "invest" huge amounts of money in content - then your time-horizon is going to be longer and your need for certainty is greater - and you may cut a side-deal with the MPEG-LA guys to keep yourself 'safe' - on the other hand, if you're a small-time company - with little content - that can't support just the overhead of the accounting for the use-fee - well then, if in 4 years it suddenly gets onerous - you can change... in the mean time if you want to know the end-game now and you won't do anything until you do - well you'll be sitting on your hands saying "I won't do anything until you give me guarantees" while YOUR competitors are taking the risk and making the move.... Business is about risk - unknown future - years out is the least of many company's problems that need to get a product out today. ++Bill --------------------------------- William J. Fulco wjf@NetworkXXIII.com 310-927-4263 (Cell) Ne cede malis sed contra audientor ito! From wjf NetworkXXIII.com Wed May 8 03:42:06 2002 From: wjf NetworkXXIII.com (William J. Fulco) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:22 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing ... In-Reply-To: <412CF9559364D4118F7600508BC27CF4110C48@LON-GG01> Message-ID: Eddie, I agree, however... > I can only say yes, .. but. As a CDN we wouldn't cheerfully > invest in a low cost entry level licence with no guarantee > that we don't get scalped later 'when the market will bear it'. It's not about how cheery you are - it's about do you want to take the risk now for the reward now. I'm sure you can wait-it-out - but you'll likely find some of your competitors moving in. I've founded several companies - and I seldom found these kinds of decisions - ones involving core-uncertainty are never "cheerful" ones - but you make the choices the best you can and live by the outcomes... and adapt (if you can) later on. Profit today so you will be in business tomorrow. > > At present we know the prices for our streaming services (mostly free) and > those prices are kept in check by competition. Right - 1) You always have the choice of going to some other solution - even "free" ones like WMA or Real. 2) If MPEG-4 wants to compete - they will need to compete... I just suggesting what they need to do to compete - get in early cheap and then decide what to do... the market for "new" technology seldom develops in the face of established technology without 1) a compelling advantage and 2) FEW dis-compelling (???) disadvantages. The MPEG-4 compelling advantage is "interoperability" - however at the moment its dis-compelling disadvantage is price (mostly the accounting nightmare for usage-fees, and in the some applications the actual fees themselves). > I find the idea of adopting a single standard, with no price > competition and > no guarantees of future pricing policy extremely scary. Be afraid - be very afraid - if you dare :-) because some less fearful competitor of yours might just take the chance and risk "getting burned" later on - figuring if they're successful, they'll have enough clout or money later on to 1) pay any increase in fees, 2) push-back on the "new" license with the threat of 3) converting their players to use another algorithm/system... If they're not very successful - well then it's a moot point anyway... As I see it, the only troubling case is an MPEG-4 adopter were only somewhat successful - such that a rise in fees would put them under - because they didn't have enough in the bank to "convert" or enough clout to negotiate - but honestly, that's not usually the scenario in businesses over years of being in business. The point is - markets don't exist to give us "cheerful" decisions - they exist to drive us - brutally so - to "the most efficient use of limited resources in the face of uncertainty." All I'm saying is that currently, the MPEG-LA thinking will kill MPEG-4's ubiquitous adoption (IMHO) - if they do this - so be it... we have choices - if "they" want to make MPEG-4 stick they have to decide soon and they've got to give "us" some reason to take the blue-pill - Putting off this "we're going to make a bazillion-dollars from new markets" greed in the form of a use-fee to later date-certain is how they can do it. That's all - it's up to them. > Cheers > > Eddie ++Bill William J. Fulco wjf@NetworkXXIII.com 310-927-4263 Cell --------------------------------- Logic: When you absolutely, positively have to refute every fallacy in the room. From craig pcube.com Tue May 7 23:47:59 2002 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:22 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Dispute won't clock QuickTime 6 -- ZDNET In-Reply-To: <200205080140.g481evGR016925@on2.com> References: <200205080140.g481evGR016925@on2.com> Message-ID: At 9:40 PM -0400 5/7/02, Daniel B. Miller wrote: >hmm... > >"very hopeful" is the kind of language you hear from negotiators who know >there is no hope of a solution anytime soon. > Apple must continue to evolve QuickTime, with or without MPEG-4. Because of the modular architecture of Quicktime, this involve nothing more than pulling the MPEG-4 codec from the QuickTime 6 release. Apple did exactly this with MPEG-2 support, which was ready as an update for version 4.0 and announced - but not released - for version 5.0 of QuickTime. As Bill Fulco noted, the marketplace will respond to any real opportunities. QuickTime has offered many of the object based coding and composition techniques incorporated in MPEG-4 for years; this is one of the reasons that the QuickTime File Format was well matched to the requirements for the MP4 file format. -- Regards Craig Birkmaier Pcube Labs From craig pcube.com Wed May 8 10:05:46 2002 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:22 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing ... In-Reply-To: <000601c1f594$898e64e0$4345fea9@epr.com> References: <000601c1f594$898e64e0$4345fea9@epr.com> Message-ID: The grace period helps marginal applications get established, but does little to help build the market for MPEG-4. As I suggested once before, if the licensors were really serious about making MPEG-4 a success, they would plow all of the royalties they collect back into promotion and development of the technology. Once established they would reap the benefits of a successful standard. But this is the tactic of those who seek to build new markets, rather than controlling exisiting markets. Craig At 11:57 PM -0700 5/6/02, Rob Koenen wrote: >Richard wrote: > >> If I have any message to the license holders it is this: >> >> give it away for now...get everyone hooked...and then renegotiate >licensing >> fees down the road when there is something out there to >collect....otherwise >> all of us have wasted all our time, and you won't make a penny. > >The licensors had already announced that there would be a grace period. >Thinking as a potential licensee, I would rather know right away what I am >dealing with before making major investment decisions, than having it free >now but with unknown fees down the road. > >Having it clear as soon as possible is the best option for the >entire market. > >Best, >Rob > >_______________________________________________ >Discuss mailing list >Discuss@lists.m4if.org >http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Regards Craig Birkmaier Pcube Labs From rkoenen intertrust.com Wed May 8 09:01:39 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:22 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Dispute won't clock QuickTime 6 -- ZDNET Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF5398@exchange.epr.com> You should not underestimate the enormous effort Apple put into supporting MPEG-4. It is considerably more than just 'a codec'. Their is a lot of back-end support too. It will also not be simple to untangle that all. Also note that there is confusing and wrong information in the press about "Apple supporting Dolby's AAC codec". This is about MPEG-4 AAC, which was invented by MPEG, not Dolby. Dolby acts as a licensing agent for 5 patent holders. Apple had it on the OSX website as "ACC", which didn't help either, but that has been corrected in the meantime, although it still is confusing to read "MPEG-4 Video and AAC Audio". It's MPEG-4 Video and Audio. (And I can't wait to upgrade my iMac !) Best, Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Craig Birkmaier [mailto:craig@pcube.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2024 19:48 > To: Daniel B. Miller; Moeritz, Sebastian > Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org; discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org > Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] Dispute won't clock QuickTime 6 -- ZDNET > > > At 9:40 PM -0400 5/7/02, Daniel B. Miller wrote: > >hmm... > > > >"very hopeful" is the kind of language you hear from > negotiators who know > >there is no hope of a solution anytime soon. > > > > Apple must continue to evolve QuickTime, with or without MPEG-4. > Because of the modular architecture of Quicktime, this involve > nothing more than pulling the MPEG-4 codec from the QuickTime 6 > release. Apple did exactly this with MPEG-2 support, which was ready > as an update for version 4.0 and announced - but not released - for > version 5.0 of QuickTime. > > As Bill Fulco noted, the marketplace will respond to any real > opportunities. QuickTime has offered many of the object based coding > and composition techniques incorporated in MPEG-4 for years; this is > one of the reasons that the QuickTime File Format was well matched to > the requirements for the MP4 file format. > > -- > Regards > Craig Birkmaier > Pcube Labs > From rkoenen intertrust.com Wed May 8 09:42:29 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:22 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing ... Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF539A@exchange.epr.com> Let's face it Bill - once the license gets established you cannot in good reason make things cost more. Increasing the price would be the tactic of a drug dealer, and one could well argue that it is "unreasonable". I believe the term of the MPEG-2 license is 5 year, and that there are strict limits on the cost increase after the term of the license -- if there are any such increases at all. "Side deals" are a non-starter, because the license needs to be non-discriminatory. (Unless everyone, big and small, gets the same side deal...) The only reasonable market building strategy is the grace period. > Yes- but have the been explicit as to how long and under what > terms? http://www.mpegla.com/news/n_02-01-31_m4v.html gives the answer: The period is a year from start of licensing and the terms are "free". Best Regards, Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: William J. Fulco [mailto:wjf@NetworkXXIII.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2024 1:14 > To: rob.koenen@m4if.org; ramizer@wmr.com; 'Rob Koenen' > Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing > ... > > > Rob, > > > The licensors had already announced that there would be a > grace period. > > Yes- but have the been explicit as to how long and under what > terms? I'm > suggesting a long-ish "grace period" - given it takes years > to develop a > market. > > > Thinking as a potential licensee, I would rather know right > away what I am > > dealing with before making major investment decisions, than > having it free > > now but with unknown fees down the road. > > Yes - I'm also suggesting that the structure of the fees for > some things > like "MPEG-2 replacement" type uses be defined early and > rationally. More > esoteric things like "movies on demand" or "Surf-beach WebCam > network" can > be fleshed out with some guidelines - without the exact > details. Or - you > can put a "reasonable" license in place for a fixed period of > time - say 5 > years - "$0.25/encoder" and same for decoder now - and that > license will be > good for 5 or 6 or 10 years. Then you can have a > "renegotiation" phase... > > > Having it clear as soon as possible is the best option for the > > entire market. > > Yes - but what I'm saying is that when there is no market you can not > honestly tell what something is worth - and when the "time > comes" - some > applications will die... some will feel ripped-off and some > will say "cool, > not as bad as we thought" - if we believe in the concept that > it is THEIR IP > and they do get to charge whatever they want - then if they > get greedy later > on and kill a golden-egg-producing-goose - then so be it - > they're stupid > and nuts... on the other hand, we KNOW that the fees needed > to launch a > market with little money in it have to be much lower than > what the market > can sustain later on.... so like the baseball player that has > a couple good > years and wants a more money at contract-renegotiation time - > it's his right > to ask and the team's right to pay or not. > > In short to launch the market, we need a "cheap" (possibly too cheap) > license to get going - and IF / WHEN the market develops > later on, there > will be money available for the IP holders to get greedy with > - or not. > Either way, there will be more information to make a rational > decision in > the matter. > > If you're going to "invest" huge amounts of money in content > - then your > time-horizon is going to be longer and your need for > certainty is greater - > and you may cut a side-deal with the MPEG-LA guys to keep > yourself 'safe' - > on the other hand, if you're a small-time company - with > little content - > that can't support just the overhead of the accounting for > the use-fee - > well then, if in 4 years it suddenly gets onerous - you can > change... in the > mean time if you want to know the end-game now and you won't > do anything > until you do - well you'll be sitting on your hands saying "I won't do > anything until you give me guarantees" while YOUR competitors > are taking the > risk and making the move.... > > Business is about risk - unknown future - years out is the > least of many > company's problems that need to get a product out today. > > ++Bill > > --------------------------------- > William J. Fulco > wjf@NetworkXXIII.com > 310-927-4263 (Cell) > > Ne cede malis sed contra audientor ito! > > > From wjf NetworkXXIII.com Wed May 8 11:45:42 2002 From: wjf NetworkXXIII.com (William J. Fulco) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:22 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing ... In-Reply-To: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF539A@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: Rob, I agree - that's my point. Once a license is established, raising the prices an arbitrary amount is very hard to do - because people need certainty... people with BIG stakes won't take the chance without some "limits" and as I suggested small players may take the chance in hopes of being big players. This is the dance we all do. All I am saying is the current usage model doesn't work for the non-existent model - so the current price is not going to get MPEG-4 adopted - the "market" at the moment is too information-poor so no one can make a rational decision. That's all - if they want to jump-start it - they need to create a long enough "window of certainty" for an early-adopter "acceptable fee"... I think you're arguing that the end-game must be negotiated up front with this window being a grace-period (it does give more certainty certainly :). That's one way of doing it. I'm just saying that there are other structures uses in contract negotiations all the time - from middle-east peace to leasing a car... they all hinge on trading off information-risk for money. I'm just offering other possibilities. I would like a decent end-price now and a grace period (SEVERAL years at least)... however, I think we still suffer from lack of information about what deals will work in the not-yet-existent market (I'm leaving out things that MPEG-2 already does - MPEG-4 replacements can be sanely priced today based on the cash-flow of the MPEG-2 market). ++Bill > Let's face it Bill - once the license gets established you > cannot in good reason make things cost more. > Increasing the price would be the tactic of a drug dealer, > and one could well argue that it is "unreasonable". > > I believe the term of the MPEG-2 license is 5 year, and > that there are strict limits on the cost increase after > the term of the license -- if there are any such increases > at all. > > "Side deals" are a non-starter, because the license needs > to be non-discriminatory. (Unless everyone, big and small, > gets the same side deal...) > > The only reasonable market building strategy is the grace > period. > > > Yes- but have the been explicit as to how long and under what > > terms? > > http://www.mpegla.com/news/n_02-01-31_m4v.html gives the answer: > The period is a year from start of licensing and the terms > are "free". > > Best Regards, > Rob > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: William J. Fulco [mailto:wjf@NetworkXXIII.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2024 1:14 > > To: rob.koenen@m4if.org; ramizer@wmr.com; 'Rob Koenen' > > Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org > > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing > > ... > > > > > > Rob, > > > > > The licensors had already announced that there would be a > > grace period. > > > > Yes- but have the been explicit as to how long and under what > > terms? I'm > > suggesting a long-ish "grace period" - given it takes years > > to develop a > > market. > > > > > Thinking as a potential licensee, I would rather know right > > away what I am > > > dealing with before making major investment decisions, than > > having it free > > > now but with unknown fees down the road. > > > > Yes - I'm also suggesting that the structure of the fees for > > some things > > like "MPEG-2 replacement" type uses be defined early and > > rationally. More > > esoteric things like "movies on demand" or "Surf-beach WebCam > > network" can > > be fleshed out with some guidelines - without the exact > > details. Or - you > > can put a "reasonable" license in place for a fixed period of > > time - say 5 > > years - "$0.25/encoder" and same for decoder now - and that > > license will be > > good for 5 or 6 or 10 years. Then you can have a > > "renegotiation" phase... > > > > > Having it clear as soon as possible is the best option for the > > > entire market. > > > > Yes - but what I'm saying is that when there is no market you can not > > honestly tell what something is worth - and when the "time > > comes" - some > > applications will die... some will feel ripped-off and some > > will say "cool, > > not as bad as we thought" - if we believe in the concept that > > it is THEIR IP > > and they do get to charge whatever they want - then if they > > get greedy later > > on and kill a golden-egg-producing-goose - then so be it - > > they're stupid > > and nuts... on the other hand, we KNOW that the fees needed > > to launch a > > market with little money in it have to be much lower than > > what the market > > can sustain later on.... so like the baseball player that has > > a couple good > > years and wants a more money at contract-renegotiation time - > > it's his right > > to ask and the team's right to pay or not. > > > > In short to launch the market, we need a "cheap" (possibly too cheap) > > license to get going - and IF / WHEN the market develops > > later on, there > > will be money available for the IP holders to get greedy with > > - or not. > > Either way, there will be more information to make a rational > > decision in > > the matter. > > > > If you're going to "invest" huge amounts of money in content > > - then your > > time-horizon is going to be longer and your need for > > certainty is greater - > > and you may cut a side-deal with the MPEG-LA guys to keep > > yourself 'safe' - > > on the other hand, if you're a small-time company - with > > little content - > > that can't support just the overhead of the accounting for > > the use-fee - > > well then, if in 4 years it suddenly gets onerous - you can > > change... in the > > mean time if you want to know the end-game now and you won't > > do anything > > until you do - well you'll be sitting on your hands saying "I won't do > > anything until you give me guarantees" while YOUR competitors > > are taking the > > risk and making the move.... > > > > Business is about risk - unknown future - years out is the > > least of many > > company's problems that need to get a product out today. > > > > ++Bill > > > > --------------------------------- > > William J. Fulco > > wjf@NetworkXXIII.com > > 310-927-4263 (Cell) > > > > Ne cede malis sed contra audientor ito! > > > > > > > From dan on2.com Wed May 8 14:46:43 2002 From: dan on2.com (Daniel B. Miller) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:23 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing ... In-Reply-To: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF539A@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: <200205081746.g48HkhGR001923@on2.com> > "Side deals" are a non-starter, because the license needs > to be non-discriminatory. (Unless everyone, big and small, > gets the same side deal...) > but isn't it true under MPEG-LA terms that you can negotiate alternative deals directly with the patent-holders? I believe several of the MPEG-2 licensors have done this with each other. I suspect the same thing is happening with MP4, effectively giving them a jump on the competition. -dbm From rkoenen intertrust.com Wed May 8 11:55:42 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:23 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing ... Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF539F@exchange.epr.com> Dan, Any patent pool should be non-exclusive. So you can negotiate with individual companies, and you could even venture to set up an alternaive pool to compete with the MPEG LA one (which wold need the same essential patents). M4IF actually encourages this - competition is good, also here. On the other hand, all participants in the MPEG standards process with patents have agreed by written statement to ISO to reasonable and *Non-Discriminatory* licensing. So it's hard for licensors to favor one party over the other. Note, too, that in the case of MPEG LA pools, licensors always pay the license as well. There are no inside deals to be cut. And regardless of all this, we need the license fast - even weeks is too long now. Best, Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel B. Miller [mailto:dan@on2.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2024 10:47 > To: Rob Koenen > Cc: 'William J. Fulco'; discuss@lists.m4if.org; > discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing > ... > > > > "Side deals" are a non-starter, because the license needs > > to be non-discriminatory. (Unless everyone, big and small, > > gets the same side deal...) > > > but isn't it true under MPEG-LA terms that you can negotiate > alternative > deals directly with the patent-holders? I believe several of > the MPEG-2 > licensors have done this with each other. I suspect the same thing is > happening with MP4, effectively giving them a jump on the competition. > > -dbm > > From rkoenen intertrust.com Wed May 8 11:59:36 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:23 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] (no subject) Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF53A0@exchange.epr.com> > I'm just offering other possibilities. Thanks for the contributions Bill, It is good to be able to flesh out all the licensing issues in public. These discussions help. Rob From wjf NetworkXXIII.com Wed May 8 12:37:01 2002 From: wjf NetworkXXIII.com (William J. Fulco) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:23 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF53A0@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: Rob, > > I'm just offering other possibilities. > > Thanks for the contributions Bill, It is good to be able to flesh out all > the licensing issues in public. These discussions help. I hope so... just trying to clarify the issues - I often see buyers that think they've got some right to what's being sold at a price that they're happy with - and sellers that think buyers have no choice. It's all just a negotiation.... Some thoughts from earlier... Basically what we (the buyers) are saying is we want a low-cost to build the market and the sellers are saying they're afraid of missing-out on a potential "boom" so they want a high-price - usually this kind of thing is handled with a "percentage of the take" kind of deal (they don't make money until we make money) - but the accounting and privacy issues in that kind of deal are always problematic (as we've seen here). One way to handle the account issues is not to try to take a percentage of the user's income - but to charge a unit-cost for the producer's goods - this is where the 2cents/hr comes in. This is better than auditing the user's books to see how much money they made - but it's still an accounting/privacy problem and at 2c the price is still potentially a killer. They could do it as a sliding scale - 0.1 cents for the first x hours, up to 2cents for whatever... (this could handle the price issue for small users - but potentially not the accounting) Another possible way to handle the baggage-free issue - especially the accounting-problems - would be to not do it as pure 2cents/hr - but perhaps as tiers - $150/year for up to 10,000 hours (1 stream * 2 cents/hr * 365 * 24) or maybe 50,000 - small-fry get it cheap - of content streamed and maybe $500/year for up to 100,000 hours and such... based on "last years' numbers" - that way no penalty for "guessing wrong" and very little accounting (again, I'm taking out the easy-to-account-for potential MPEG-4 DVD market)... with a grace-period. Maybe there is a cap at 100,000 hours/content year? or 1,000,000 hours or 5,000,000 or some such Again it's the uncertainty that causes the problem - the small producers - internet radio-stations etc are afraid that they're business model can't support a "success problem" and/or that the accounting is too intrusive - fine - they buy a bulk-license - pay your $150 or $500 and you're good to go for the year. The big producers like cable-TV MSOs are afraid that if they convert over that 2c/hr * all their channels on all their systems * all the hours in the day mean HUGE expenses - then they need a cap - 5,000,000 hours/year means that they pay $100,000 and they're good to go no matter how big their system - again - with little accounting nightmare... If the price is sufficiently low - like the $0.25/encoder and $0.25/decoder with a cap - then big consumers (like Apple) can just write the check for the max and call it a day. Same could be done with usage-fees - if there is very inexpensive entry number - then small users can write a (small) check and be done with it. If there is a cap on the total amount per "entity" perhaps - the big companies can write a (rather large) check and be done with it. ++Bill From trbarry trbarry.com Wed May 8 15:36:52 2002 From: trbarry trbarry.com (trbarry@trbarry.com) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:23 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing ... In-Reply-To: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF539F@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: <001e01c1f6bf$528f6440$0400a8c0@com.robot> I've been watching all this as a clueless outsider since the beginning. And it seems to go round and round. But it also seems that the MPEG-LA is still holding out for usage fees on encoded data and I don't think they are going to get them. Even lowering the usage fees probably wouldn't help. It's the very existence of the encumbrance on the data that acts much as if you bought land with a crippling easement on it. A usage fee of zero that still legally had the cost of the reporting requirements would still probably be too much. In other words, it is one of those things where the transaction costs make it not worthwhile to collect. - Tom | -----Original Message----- | From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org | [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Rob Koenen | Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2024 1:56 PM | To: 'Daniel B. Miller' | Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org | Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing | ... | | | Dan, | | Any patent pool should be non-exclusive. So you can negotiate | with individual companies, and you could even venture to set | up an alternaive pool to compete with the MPEG LA one (which | wold need the same essential patents). M4IF actually encourages | this - competition is good, also here. | | On the other hand, all participants in the MPEG standards process | with patents have agreed by written statement to ISO to reasonable | and *Non-Discriminatory* licensing. So it's hard for licensors to | favor one party over the other. | | Note, too, that in the case of MPEG LA pools, licensors always pay | the license as well. There are no inside deals to be cut. | | And regardless of all this, we need the license fast - even weeks | is too long now. | | Best, | Rob | | | | > -----Original Message----- | > From: Daniel B. Miller [mailto:dan@on2.com] | > Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2024 10:47 | > To: Rob Koenen | > Cc: 'William J. Fulco'; discuss@lists.m4if.org; | > discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org | > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] To those concerned about MPEG- | 4 Licensing | > ... | > | > | > > "Side deals" are a non-starter, because the license needs | > > to be non-discriminatory. (Unless everyone, big and small, | > > gets the same side deal...) | > > | > but isn't it true under MPEG-LA terms that you can negotiate | > alternative | > deals directly with the patent-holders? I believe several of | > the MPEG-2 | > licensors have done this with each other. I suspect the | same thing is | > happening with MP4, effectively giving them a jump on the | competition. | > | > -dbm | > | > | _______________________________________________ | Discuss mailing list | Discuss@lists.m4if.org | http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss | From kulkarniS dvd.panasonic.com Wed May 8 12:40:26 2002 From: kulkarniS dvd.panasonic.com (Sanjay Kulkarni) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:23 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Re: Royaly based on target market segment? References: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF53A0@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: <3CD97119.47FB3AF3@dvd.panasonic.com> Gentlemen: Here's another approach. Case1: In the Internet / broadband Streaming market, there are already established players such as WM, Real, QuickTime, MPEG2... MPEG4 is trying to establish itself as a player in this market. Case2: Packaged media (DVD)... Established player: MPEG2... MPEG4 will try to coexist (if not replace) MPEG2 and so on.. I wonder if MPEG LA can base its royalties depending on the target market? I am not even sure what variables we are talking about here (but I am sure there are wise people here who'd know), I might be adding some more to the already complex royalty issue. But one advantage I see in this approach is, we can keep the royalties depending on the "need-to-establish-itself" basis. Applications that MPEG4 targets right-away will have a fixed royalty while applications in which MPEG4 requires to get a foothold yet will have a more flexible royalty (read that as, free-for-a-predefined-period-to-be-renegociated-later basis). Just my 2 cents! Regards, Sanjay / Panasonic Rob Koenen wrote: > > I'm just offering other possibilities. > > Thanks for the contributions Bill, It is good to be able to flesh out all > the licensing issues in public. These discussions help. > > Rob > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From dan on2.com Wed May 8 15:55:58 2002 From: dan on2.com (Daniel B. Miller) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:23 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] (no subject) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200205081855.g48ItwGR003690@on2.com> however, caps are inherently discriminatory to small companies. A sliding scale is more fair. FWIW I think any kind of usage fee is bound to fail. We and other smaller codec co's have flirted with this kind of pricing over the years, and it has almost always been a disaster. Customers tend to find any pricing scheme where they pay more for their use of a product inherently unfair. They want to pay for what they buy, not what they do with it after they buy it. Among other issues, in many cases there is little interest in having _any_ party know how much of your product you are selling. If it's too little, you look like a failure. If it's too much, everybody invoved in the project wants a raise. It's a lose/lose. ___ Dan Miller (++,) CTO and founder, On2 Technologies On Wed, 8 May 2002, William J. Fulco wrote: > Rob, > > > > I'm just offering other possibilities. > > > > Thanks for the contributions Bill, It is good to be able to flesh out all > > the licensing issues in public. These discussions help. > > I hope so... just trying to clarify the issues - I often see buyers that > think they've got some right to what's being sold at a price that they're > happy with - and sellers that think buyers have no choice. It's all just a > negotiation.... > > Some thoughts from earlier... > > Basically what we (the buyers) are saying is we want a low-cost to build the > market and the sellers are saying they're afraid of missing-out on a > potential "boom" so they want a high-price - usually this kind of thing is > handled with a "percentage of the take" kind of deal (they don't make money > until we make money) - but the accounting and privacy issues in that kind of > deal are always problematic (as we've seen here). One way to handle the > account issues is not to try to take a percentage of the user's income - but > to charge a unit-cost for the producer's goods - this is where the 2cents/hr > comes in. This is better than auditing the user's books to see how much > money they made - but it's still an accounting/privacy problem and at 2c the > price is still potentially a killer. > > They could do it as a sliding scale - 0.1 cents for the first x hours, up to > 2cents for whatever... (this could handle the price issue for small users - > but potentially not the accounting) Another possible way to handle the > baggage-free issue - especially the accounting-problems - would be to not do > it as pure 2cents/hr - but perhaps as tiers - $150/year for up to 10,000 > hours (1 stream * 2 cents/hr * 365 * 24) or maybe 50,000 - small-fry get it > cheap - of content streamed and maybe $500/year for up to 100,000 hours and > such... based on "last years' numbers" - that way no penalty for "guessing > wrong" and very little accounting (again, I'm taking out the > easy-to-account-for potential MPEG-4 DVD market)... with a grace-period. > Maybe there is a cap at 100,000 hours/content year? or 1,000,000 hours or > 5,000,000 or some such > > Again it's the uncertainty that causes the problem - the small producers - > internet radio-stations etc are afraid that they're business model can't > support a "success problem" and/or that the accounting is too intrusive - > fine - they buy a bulk-license - pay your $150 or $500 and you're good to go > for the year. The big producers like cable-TV MSOs are afraid that if they > convert over that 2c/hr * all their channels on all their systems * all the > hours in the day mean HUGE expenses - then they need a cap - 5,000,000 > hours/year means that they pay $100,000 and they're good to go no matter how > big their system - again - with little accounting nightmare... > > If the price is sufficiently low - like the $0.25/encoder and $0.25/decoder > with a cap - then big consumers (like Apple) can just write the check for > the max and call it a day. Same could be done with usage-fees - if there is > very inexpensive entry number - then small users can write a (small) check > and be done with it. If there is a cap on the total amount per "entity" > perhaps - the big companies can write a (rather large) check and be done > with it. > > > ++Bill > > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From rkoenen intertrust.com Wed May 8 14:43:44 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:23 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] (no subject) Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF53A8@exchange.epr.com> > however, caps are inherently discriminatory to small > companies. A sliding scale is more fair. I could agree, although a lower threshold can mitigate that effect, depending on whre the threshold is. But that moves the pain to the part of the sliding scale, especially towards the end where th upper cap kicks in. > FWIW I think any kind of usage fee is bound to fail. We and other smaller > codec co's have flirted with this kind of pricing over the years, and it > has almost always been a disaster. This is a fair warning ... Rob From jgreenhall divxnetworks.com Wed May 8 20:07:04 2002 From: jgreenhall divxnetworks.com (Jordan Greenhall) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:23 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Re: Royaly based on target market segment? In-Reply-To: <785C7AF49DC3514B98BF059A8ECBC77244DFFA@mrsmith.divxnetworks.com> Message-ID: <785C7AF49DC3514B98BF059A8ECBC772117EC8@mrsmith.divxnetworks.com> Sanjay, These are two good cents and are exactly what MPEGLA should do. One-size-fits all is non-sense. The market is too complex for that kind of approach. Rather, what should be done is an analysis: 1. Monetization model of media in a market. DVD is able to make more $ per unit than streaming, for example. And broadcast TV makes its money by aggregating a lot of viewers against a relatively low revenue per viewer. 2. Competitive position in that market. Where someone like a Microsoft or Apple adds value to a "mothership" product by bundling a multimedia technology for free, MPEG-4 has to be darn close to free to compete in any way. (And I should mention that *some* margin for profit over and above the MPEG-4 patent fees should be left for the actual technology vendors.) I'd be happy to work with others from this forum and actual representatives of the customers in each of the market segments to analyze the respective markets and dynamics thereto - if anyone is interested? Jordan -----Original Message----- From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org] On Behalf Of Sanjay Kulkarni Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2024 11:40 AM To: discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Re: Royaly based on target market segment? Gentlemen: Here's another approach. Case1: In the Internet / broadband Streaming market, there are already established players such as WM, Real, QuickTime, MPEG2... MPEG4 is trying to establish itself as a player in this market. Case2: Packaged media (DVD)... Established player: MPEG2... MPEG4 will try to coexist (if not replace) MPEG2 and so on.. I wonder if MPEG LA can base its royalties depending on the target market? I am not even sure what variables we are talking about here (but I am sure there are wise people here who'd know), I might be adding some more to the already complex royalty issue. But one advantage I see in this approach is, we can keep the royalties depending on the "need-to-establish-itself" basis. Applications that MPEG4 targets right-away will have a fixed royalty while applications in which MPEG4 requires to get a foothold yet will have a more flexible royalty (read that as, free-for-a-predefined-period-to-be-renegociated-later basis). Just my 2 cents! Regards, Sanjay / Panasonic Rob Koenen wrote: > > I'm just offering other possibilities. > > Thanks for the contributions Bill, It is good to be able to flesh out all > the licensing issues in public. These discussions help. > > 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 wjf NetworkXXIII.com Wed May 8 20:59:43 2002 From: wjf NetworkXXIII.com (William J. Fulco) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:23 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <200205081855.g48ItwGR003690@on2.com> Message-ID: Good point - I think it should all be free! I don't like the use-fee myself - it has lots of problems... however there already is a use-fee of sorts for MPEG-2 so that horse is out of the barn.... so I'm guessing that MPEG-LA won't just drop the concept... I don't see how caps are a problem when put in with a sliding scale. If I could write 1 check that covers me for up to x hours - and it's cheap, I write the check and get on with it - like Apple saying - we'll pay the million bucks for all the coders and a million for all the decoders and we're done - go have fun. In the sliding scale case, if you're a small time-operator - you pay a little fixed amount and go to work -if you're a big-time guy - you pay more and you're done with it... if you wanted to look like a big-time place you could pay for a tier well-above what you really stream and hope the word gets out :-) Again, I don't like usage-fees for new markets - but if I was the maker of an MPEG-2 DVD and paying 4cents/DVD for a license - I can see wanting to switch to new-fangled MPEG-4 DVD-players when they come out (because of broadband-connected DVD players or putting HDTV on IR-Laser DVDs instead of going to blue-light lasers)- and I can see MPEG-LA not wanting that kind of switch to go on "for free" - but maybe they would need "legacy" MPEG-2 content anyway so there's no problem.... ++Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org > [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Daniel B. Miller > Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2024 11:56 AM > To: M4IF Discussion List (E-mail) > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] (no subject) > > > however, caps are inherently discriminatory to small companies. A sliding > scale is more fair. > > FWIW I think any kind of usage fee is bound to fail. We and other smaller > Codec co's have flirted with this kind of pricing over the years, and it > has almost always been a disaster. > > Customers tend to find any pricing scheme where they pay more for their > use of a product inherently unfair. They want to pay for what they buy, > not what they do with it after they buy it. Among other issues, in many > cases there is little interest in having _any_ party know how much of your > product you are selling. If it's too little, you look like a failure. If > it's too much, everybody invoved in the project wants a raise. It's a > lose/lose. > > ___ Dan Miller > (++,) CTO and founder, On2 Technologies > > On Wed, 8 May 2002, William J. Fulco wrote: > > > Rob, > > > > > > I'm just offering other possibilities. > > > > > > Thanks for the contributions Bill, It is good to be able to > flesh out all > > > the licensing issues in public. These discussions help. > > > > I hope so... just trying to clarify the issues - I often see buyers that > > think they've got some right to what's being sold at a price > that they're > > happy with - and sellers that think buyers have no choice. It's > all just a > > negotiation.... > > > > Some thoughts from earlier... > > > > Basically what we (the buyers) are saying is we want a low-cost > to build the > > market and the sellers are saying they're afraid of missing-out on a > > potential "boom" so they want a high-price - usually this kind > of thing is > > handled with a "percentage of the take" kind of deal (they > don't make money > > until we make money) - but the accounting and privacy issues in > that kind of > > deal are always problematic (as we've seen here). One way to handle the > > account issues is not to try to take a percentage of the user's > income - but > > to charge a unit-cost for the producer's goods - this is where > the 2cents/hr > > comes in. This is better than auditing the user's books to see how much > > money they made - but it's still an accounting/privacy problem > and at 2c the > > price is still potentially a killer. > > > > They could do it as a sliding scale - 0.1 cents for the first x > hours, up to > > 2cents for whatever... (this could handle the price issue for > small users - > > but potentially not the accounting) Another possible way to handle the > > baggage-free issue - especially the accounting-problems - would > be to not do > > it as pure 2cents/hr - but perhaps as tiers - $150/year for up to 10,000 > > hours (1 stream * 2 cents/hr * 365 * 24) or maybe 50,000 - > small-fry get it > > cheap - of content streamed and maybe $500/year for up to > 100,000 hours and > > such... based on "last years' numbers" - that way no penalty > for "guessing > > wrong" and very little accounting (again, I'm taking out the > > easy-to-account-for potential MPEG-4 DVD market)... with a grace-period. > > Maybe there is a cap at 100,000 hours/content year? or > 1,000,000 hours or > > 5,000,000 or some such > > > > Again it's the uncertainty that causes the problem - the small > producers - > > internet radio-stations etc are afraid that they're business model can't > > support a "success problem" and/or that the accounting is too > intrusive - > > fine - they buy a bulk-license - pay your $150 or $500 and > you're good to go > > for the year. The big producers like cable-TV MSOs are afraid > that if they > > convert over that 2c/hr * all their channels on all their > systems * all the > > hours in the day mean HUGE expenses - then they need a cap - 5,000,000 > > hours/year means that they pay $100,000 and they're good to go > no matter how > > big their system - again - with little accounting nightmare... > > > > If the price is sufficiently low - like the $0.25/encoder and > $0.25/decoder > > with a cap - then big consumers (like Apple) can just write the > check for > > the max and call it a day. Same could be done with usage-fees - > if there is > > very inexpensive entry number - then small users can write a > (small) check > > and be done with it. If there is a cap on the total amount per "entity" > > perhaps - the big companies can write a (rather large) check and be done > > with it. > > > > > > ++Bill > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 singer apple.com Thu May 9 09:55:00 2002 From: singer apple.com (Dave Singer) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:23 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] (no subject) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >Again, I don't like usage-fees for new markets - but if I was the maker of >an MPEG-2 DVD and paying 4cents/DVD for a license - I can see wanting to >switch to new-fangled MPEG-4 DVD-players when they come out (because of >broadband-connected DVD players or putting HDTV on IR-Laser DVDs instead of >going to blue-light lasers)- and I can see MPEG-LA not wanting that kind of >switch to go on "for free" - but maybe they would need "legacy" MPEG-2 >content anyway so there's no problem.... > This is very much a personal opinion: The use fees seem to be only suited for applications which are "dedicated channel". An entire DVD is devoted to MPEG-2; an entire DVB broadcast is likewise. In these cases, monitoring to calculate the usage fee is un-needed, and the model is workable. The problem is that MPEG-4 is not intended for dedicated channel use. It is as if the lawyers and the engineers have completely different uses and markets in mind. MPEG-4 is intended for mixed-channel (internet, IP, network) use, where it is completely unreasonable to charge for the entire channel (e.g. "per disk copied", "per minute spent dialed in") and unworkable to compute the fractional channel usage of by the MPEG-4 video codec. -- David Singer Apple Computer/QuickTime From wjf NetworkXXIII.com Thu May 9 10:30:31 2002 From: wjf NetworkXXIII.com (William J. Fulco) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:23 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] (no subject) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dave, That's kind of the take I've been assuming - that replacement for MPEG-2 applications are a reasonable use for use fees (and I've speculated that that is what drove MPEG-LA to consider them in the first-place - preventing the loss of substantial revenue if large distributors switch from MPEG-2 in applications like DVD to MPEG-4 - again, pure, bald-faced speculation on my part). The thing that rubs us all the wrong way the worst is the accounting-aspect... this is why I suggested tiered-pricing, lower entry-price (for smaller companies) and caps (for larger firms) - for non-replacement applications. Personally, I'd like to see the use-fee for non-replacement uses go away... ++Bill --------------------------------- William J. Fulco wjf@NetworkXXIII.com 310-927-4263 (Cell) Ne cede malis sed contra audientor ito! > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2024 5:55 AM > To: William J. Fulco; Daniel B. Miller; M4IF Discussion List (E-mail) > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] (no subject) > > > >Again, I don't like usage-fees for new markets - but if I was > >the maker of an MPEG-2 DVD and paying 4cents/DVD for a license > >- I can see wanting to switch to new-fangled MPEG-4 DVD-players > >when they come out (because of broadband-connected DVD players > >or putting HDTV on IR-Laser DVDs instead of going to blue-light > >lasers)- and I can see MPEG-LA not wanting that kind of switch > >to go on "for free" - but maybe they would need "legacy" MPEG-2 > >content anyway so there's no problem.... > > > > This is very much a personal opinion: > > The use fees seem to be only suited for applications which are > "dedicated channel". An entire DVD is devoted to MPEG-2; an entire > DVB broadcast is likewise. In these cases, monitoring to calculate > the usage fee is un-needed, and the model is workable. > > The problem is that MPEG-4 is not intended for dedicated channel use. > It is as if the lawyers and the engineers have completely different > uses and markets in mind. MPEG-4 is intended for mixed-channel > (internet, IP, network) use, where it is completely unreasonable to > charge for the entire channel (e.g. "per disk copied", "per minute > spent dialed in") and unworkable to compute the fractional channel > usage of by the MPEG-4 video Codec. > -- > David Singer > Apple Computer/QuickTime > From kulkarniS dvd.panasonic.com Thu May 9 11:13:15 2002 From: kulkarniS dvd.panasonic.com (Sanjay Kulkarni) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:24 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Market based Royalty References: Message-ID: <3CDAAE2B.BDCA9C74@dvd.panasonic.com> Dave's comments further strengthen my idea that a market based royalty scheme would be just right for MPEG4. As he rightly says, the lawyers and engineers working on MPEG4 have completely different uses and markets in mind. The current licensing structure would kill any other applications of MPEG4 in as yet unknown markets. Maybe a market based monitization scheme with upper caps on each market segment would suit everyone? Also, if I am to make a pure MPEG4 based DVD, I'd pay (say) 4 cents/disc. If I were to make a hybrid disc (MPEG2+MPEG4, which I think will be a more practical case) MPEG LA can work out a scheme where the total license for MPEG2 and MPEG4 content can be 4 cents/disc. IMHO this should suit the licensees and licensors of dedicated channel providers - DVD / DVB. For markets like Internet Streaming, where MPEG4 would be trying to get a foothold, IMHO no one's going to choose a use-based-fee royalty structure, especially when their are other options available that are "free" and have an installed base of users. In this case the encoder/decoder licensing model can be applied with a cap of, say, 1 million or so. I think MPEG4 licensing is the most complex of technology licensing issues ever to be discussed, and rightly so, because of its vast application areas. MPEG LA needs to keep the target markets and the monitization model in each market, in mind while deciding a scheme while leaving an open door to hitherto unknown application areas of MPEG4. Regards, Sanjay / Pansonic Dave Singer wrote: > >Again, I don't like usage-fees for new markets - but if I was the maker of > >an MPEG-2 DVD and paying 4cents/DVD for a license - I can see wanting to > >switch to new-fangled MPEG-4 DVD-players when they come out (because of > >broadband-connected DVD players or putting HDTV on IR-Laser DVDs instead of > >going to blue-light lasers)- and I can see MPEG-LA not wanting that kind of > >switch to go on "for free" - but maybe they would need "legacy" MPEG-2 > >content anyway so there's no problem.... > > > > This is very much a personal opinion: > > The use fees seem to be only suited for applications which are > "dedicated channel". An entire DVD is devoted to MPEG-2; an entire > DVB broadcast is likewise. In these cases, monitoring to calculate > the usage fee is un-needed, and the model is workable. > > The problem is that MPEG-4 is not intended for dedicated channel use. > It is as if the lawyers and the engineers have completely different > uses and markets in mind. MPEG-4 is intended for mixed-channel > (internet, IP, network) use, where it is completely unreasonable to > charge for the entire channel (e.g. "per disk copied", "per minute > spent dialed in") and unworkable to compute the fractional channel > usage of by the MPEG-4 video codec. > -- > David Singer > Apple Computer/QuickTime > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From craig pcube.com Thu May 9 15:58:06 2002 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:24 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] (no subject) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 9:30 AM -0700 5/9/02, William J. Fulco wrote: >Dave, > >That's kind of the take I've been assuming - that replacement for MPEG-2 >applications are a reasonable use for use fees (and I've speculated that >that is what drove MPEG-LA to consider them in the first-place - preventing >the loss of substantial revenue if large distributors switch from MPEG-2 in >applications like DVD to MPEG-4 - again, pure, bald-faced speculation on my >part). I doubt that this was a significant motivation. With the huge installed base of MPEG-2 DVD players any change in the format would be devastating. It will be MPEG-2 for years... The main possible exception is HDTV. Here, it may be possible to get stores to stock titles in a second format. If MPEG-4 is used for coding HDTV then there might be an opportunity for it to get a foot in the door. I have speculated that the MPEG-LA licensors decided to go for usage fees for streaming applications where money is already changing hands, especially choke points that are easy to control. Hence: Any VOD service would be easy picking Any streaming media hosting service would be easy picking (e.g. Akamai, Digital island, etc) Any subscription streaming media service would be easy picking (e.g. Real) And any disc replication service would be easy picking (keep in mind that CD-ROM is a very strong candidate for MPEG-4 content, not just DVD). We shall see what happens... -- Regards Craig Birkmaier Pcube Labs From wjf NetworkXXIII.com Thu May 9 13:26:27 2002 From: wjf NetworkXXIII.com (William J. Fulco) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:24 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] (no subject) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yup. In my analyst-role I got an early briefed on blue-light laser technology from one of the big CE companies. Very impressive - with MPEG-4, very useless (a little unfair I grant). It's really clear to me that HDTV DVDs are best accomplished by MPEG-4 (or something else) and today's replication infrastructure - not blue light. Also, most of the CE companies are now talking about broadband-connected DVD players, PVRs and such - these will be multi-algorithm devices. Don't underestimate how quickly MPEG-4 applications for such devices that involved packaged-media happen if those machines gain several million units in short order. MPEG-2 for legacy for ever :-) ++Bill --------------------------------- William J. Fulco wjf@NetworkXXIII.com 310-927-4263 (Cell) > I doubt that this was a significant motivation. With the huge > installed base of MPEG-2 DVD players any change in the format would > be devastating. It will be MPEG-2 for years... > > The main possible exception is HDTV. Here, it may be possible to get > stores to stock titles in a second format. If MPEG-4 is used for > coding HDTV then there might be an opportunity for it to get a foot > in the door. > > I have speculated that the MPEG-LA licensors decided to go for usage > fees for streaming applications where money is already changing > hands, especially choke points that are easy to control. > > Hence: > > Any VOD service would be easy picking > > Any streaming media hosting service would be easy picking (e.g. > Akamai, Digital island, etc) > > Any subscription streaming media service would be easy picking (e.g. Real) > > And any disc replication service would be easy picking (keep in mind > that CD-ROM is a very strong candidate for MPEG-4 content, not just > DVD). > > We shall see what happens... > -- > Regards > Craig Birkmaier > Pcube Labs > From dan on2.com Thu May 9 16:43:47 2002 From: dan on2.com (Daniel B. Miller) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:24 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Names / Part 10 In-Reply-To: <004c01c1e7bc$8ad7a220$6469bb81@ldv.etechnik.tumuenchen.de> Message-ID: <200205091943.g49JhmGR001157@on2.com> sorry to respond late to this thread, just noticed -- Our company (On2 technologies) has an audio codec dubbed "AVC". I think it would be best to avoid names that could cause market confusion. Seems like "MPEG-4 part 10" is being used commonly -- why it can't just be MPEG-10 I don't know, that seems easier to remember. ___ Dan Miller (++,) CTO and founder, On2 Technologies On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Klaus Diepold wrote: > Iain, > > how about "Advanced Video Coding" or "AVC" ? > > Klaus Diepold > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Iain Richardson (ensigr)" > To: > Sent: Friday, April 19, 2024 5:50 PM > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Names / Part 10 > > > > The JVT draft standard is due to become Part 10 of MPEG-4 and also ITU-T > > H.264. Does anyone have a feel for the likely "popular" name for the > > standard ? E.g. many people still refer to it as H.26L; "14496 Part 10" > > isn't very catchy, nor is H.264. Any opinions ? > > > > Thanks > > > > Iain Richardson > > www.vcodex.com > > Video Coding Research and Consultancy > > www.eng.rgu.ac.uk > > The Robert Gordon University > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 dan on2.com Thu May 9 16:47:47 2002 From: dan on2.com (Daniel B. Miller) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:24 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing ... In-Reply-To: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59CF1B50@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: <200205091947.g49JllGR001272@on2.com> Rob -- can you provide a pointer to information about how to get involved in the JVT (Mpeg4/p10) work? I assume it is similar to MPEG committee membership, ie ANSI membership &/or corporate sponsor? ___ Dan Miller (++,) CTO and founder, On2 Technologies On Fri, 3 May 2002, Rob Koenen wrote: > > > As for me, I'm looking at MPEG-4 Part 10 and hoping > > that it is > > > patent-free ;-) > > > > > > I wouldn't hold your breath. Many companies are nervous about > > submarine > > patents. There's a strong anti-free-license movement in MPEG. > > Sweeping statements like these are very unhelpful. > > It may indeed be unlikley that full JVT codec is going to be RF > (Royalty-Free). > There is, however, a strong desire among many parties to try and > establish a RF baseline. There is an ongoing effort to see how such > an RF baseline could be established. It is area in which people like > to maneuver carefully, for obvious reasons. > > Rob > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From rkoenen intertrust.com Thu May 9 13:56:18 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:24 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing ... Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF53C9@exchange.epr.com> Dan, There are two ways to get involved in the work of the JVT: * through MPEG - in your case, through ANSI * through ITU-T - I do not know how that would work The best way is to contact Gary Sullivan, who heads the JVT. He also knows about ITU-T procedures. JVT is meeting this week, so Gary will be extremely busy. FYI - The codec is progressing to Committee Draft (and I believe an ITU equivalent thereof) this week; this is a very stable draft. Kind Regards, Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel B. Miller [mailto:dan@on2.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2024 12:48 > To: Rob Koenen > Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org; discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] To those concerned about > MPEG- 4 Licensing ... > > > Rob -- > > can you provide a pointer to information about how to get > involved in the > JVT (Mpeg4/p10) work? I assume it is similar to MPEG committee > membership, ie ANSI membership &/or corporate sponsor? > > ___ Dan Miller > (++,) CTO and founder, On2 Technologies > > On Fri, 3 May 2002, Rob Koenen wrote: > > > > > As for me, I'm looking at MPEG-4 Part 10 and hoping > > > that it is > > > > patent-free ;-) > > > > > > > > > I wouldn't hold your breath. Many companies are nervous about > > > submarine > > > patents. There's a strong anti-free-license movement in MPEG. > > > > Sweeping statements like these are very unhelpful. > > > > It may indeed be unlikley that full JVT codec is going to be RF > > (Royalty-Free). > > There is, however, a strong desire among many parties to try and > > establish a RF baseline. There is an ongoing effort to see how such > > an RF baseline could be established. It is area in which people like > > to maneuver carefully, for obvious reasons. > > > > Rob > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss mailing list > > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > From rkoenen intertrust.com Thu May 9 13:59:20 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:24 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Names / Part 10 Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF53CA@exchange.epr.com> On this one, you need to talk to MPEG. M4IF has no influence over names MPEG chooses. Anyway, it will always be "MPEG-4 AVC". (just like there is MPEG-2 AAC and MPEG-4 AAC Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel B. Miller [mailto:dan@on2.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2024 12:44 > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] Names / Part 10 > > > sorry to respond late to this thread, just noticed -- > > Our company (On2 technologies) has an audio codec dubbed > "AVC". I think > it would be best to avoid names that could cause market confusion. > > Seems like "MPEG-4 part 10" is being used commonly -- why it > can't just be > MPEG-10 I don't know, that seems easier to remember. > > ___ Dan Miller > (++,) CTO and founder, On2 Technologies > > On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Klaus Diepold wrote: > > > Iain, > > > > how about "Advanced Video Coding" or "AVC" ? > > > > Klaus Diepold > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Iain Richardson (ensigr)" > > To: > > Sent: Friday, April 19, 2024 5:50 PM > > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Names / Part 10 > > > > > > > The JVT draft standard is due to become Part 10 of MPEG-4 > and also ITU-T > > > H.264. Does anyone have a feel for the likely "popular" > name for the > > > standard ? E.g. many people still refer to it as H.26L; > "14496 Part 10" > > > isn't very catchy, nor is H.264. Any opinions ? > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Iain Richardson > > > www.vcodex.com > > > Video Coding Research and Consultancy > > > www.eng.rgu.ac.uk > > > The Robert Gordon University > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 Peter.Haighton m4if.org Thu May 9 17:19:57 2002 From: Peter.Haighton m4if.org (Peter Haighton) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:24 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Names / Part 10 In-Reply-To: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF53CA@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: Hello, just to weigh in on this, it really depends on who you are talking to for the name. People from MPEG generally will call it JVT, MPEG-4 Part 10, or AVC while ITU people generally use H.26L, JVT or AVC. I suppose the real name is AVC and each organization will adopt the standard as they see fit. For example MPEG-2 is also known as H.262. Peter -----Original Message----- From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Rob Koenen Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2024 3:59 PM To: 'Daniel B. Miller'; discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Names / Part 10 On this one, you need to talk to MPEG. M4IF has no influence over names MPEG chooses. Anyway, it will always be "MPEG-4 AVC". (just like there is MPEG-2 AAC and MPEG-4 AAC Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel B. Miller [mailto:dan@on2.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2024 12:44 > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] Names / Part 10 > > > sorry to respond late to this thread, just noticed -- > > Our company (On2 technologies) has an audio codec dubbed > "AVC". I think > it would be best to avoid names that could cause market confusion. > > Seems like "MPEG-4 part 10" is being used commonly -- why it > can't just be > MPEG-10 I don't know, that seems easier to remember. > > ___ Dan Miller > (++,) CTO and founder, On2 Technologies > > On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Klaus Diepold wrote: > > > Iain, > > > > how about "Advanced Video Coding" or "AVC" ? > > > > Klaus Diepold > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Iain Richardson (ensigr)" > > To: > > Sent: Friday, April 19, 2024 5:50 PM > > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Names / Part 10 > > > > > > > The JVT draft standard is due to become Part 10 of MPEG-4 > and also ITU-T > > > H.264. Does anyone have a feel for the likely "popular" > name for the > > > standard ? E.g. many people still refer to it as H.26L; > "14496 Part 10" > > > isn't very catchy, nor is H.264. Any opinions ? > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Iain Richardson > > > www.vcodex.com > > > Video Coding Research and Consultancy > > > www.eng.rgu.ac.uk > > > The Robert Gordon University > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 tlm demografx.com Thu May 9 14:35:54 2002 From: tlm demografx.com (Tom McMahon) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:24 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Names / Part 10 Message-ID: Don't forget H.264. -----Original Message----- From: Peter Haighton [mailto:Peter.Haighton@m4if.org] Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2024 1:20 PM To: Rob Koenen; 'Daniel B. Miller'; discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Names / Part 10 Hello, just to weigh in on this, it really depends on who you are talking to for the name. People from MPEG generally will call it JVT, MPEG-4 Part 10, or AVC while ITU people generally use H.26L, JVT or AVC. I suppose the real name is AVC and each organization will adopt the standard as they see fit. For example MPEG-2 is also known as H.262. Peter -----Original Message----- From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Rob Koenen Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2024 3:59 PM To: 'Daniel B. Miller'; discuss@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Names / Part 10 On this one, you need to talk to MPEG. M4IF has no influence over names MPEG chooses. Anyway, it will always be "MPEG-4 AVC". (just like there is MPEG-2 AAC and MPEG-4 AAC Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel B. Miller [mailto:dan@on2.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2024 12:44 > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] Names / Part 10 > > > sorry to respond late to this thread, just noticed -- > > Our company (On2 technologies) has an audio codec dubbed "AVC". I > think it would be best to avoid names that could cause market > confusion. > > Seems like "MPEG-4 part 10" is being used commonly -- why it can't > just be MPEG-10 I don't know, that seems easier to remember. > > ___ Dan Miller > (++,) CTO and founder, On2 Technologies > > On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Klaus Diepold wrote: > > > Iain, > > > > how about "Advanced Video Coding" or "AVC" ? > > > > Klaus Diepold > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Iain Richardson (ensigr)" > > To: > > Sent: Friday, April 19, 2024 5:50 PM > > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Names / Part 10 > > > > > > > The JVT draft standard is due to become Part 10 of MPEG-4 > and also ITU-T > > > H.264. Does anyone have a feel for the likely "popular" > name for the > > > standard ? E.g. many people still refer to it as H.26L; > "14496 Part 10" > > > isn't very catchy, nor is H.264. Any opinions ? > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Iain Richardson > > > www.vcodex.com > > > Video Coding Research and Consultancy > > > www.eng.rgu.ac.uk > > > The Robert Gordon University > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From dstrasse ati.com Thu May 9 18:53:11 2002 From: dstrasse ati.com (David Strasser) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:25 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing ... Message-ID: I'm not sure how you can say it's a stable draft when JVT has not selected Profiles or Levels yet. -----Original Message----- From: Rob Koenen [mailto:rkoenen@intertrust.com] Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2024 3:56 PM To: 'Daniel B. Miller' Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org; Gary Sullivan (E-mail) Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing ... Dan, There are two ways to get involved in the work of the JVT: * through MPEG - in your case, through ANSI * through ITU-T - I do not know how that would work The best way is to contact Gary Sullivan, who heads the JVT. He also knows about ITU-T procedures. JVT is meeting this week, so Gary will be extremely busy. FYI - The codec is progressing to Committee Draft (and I believe an ITU equivalent thereof) this week; this is a very stable draft. Kind Regards, Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel B. Miller [mailto:dan@on2.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2024 12:48 > To: Rob Koenen > Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org; discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] To those concerned about > MPEG- 4 Licensing ... > > > Rob -- > > can you provide a pointer to information about how to get > involved in the > JVT (Mpeg4/p10) work? I assume it is similar to MPEG committee > membership, ie ANSI membership &/or corporate sponsor? > > ___ Dan Miller > (++,) CTO and founder, On2 Technologies > > On Fri, 3 May 2002, Rob Koenen wrote: > > > > > As for me, I'm looking at MPEG-4 Part 10 and hoping > > > that it is > > > > patent-free ;-) > > > > > > > > > I wouldn't hold your breath. Many companies are nervous about > > > submarine > > > patents. There's a strong anti-free-license movement in MPEG. > > > > Sweeping statements like these are very unhelpful. > > > > It may indeed be unlikley that full JVT codec is going to be RF > > (Royalty-Free). > > There is, however, a strong desire among many parties to try and > > establish a RF baseline. There is an ongoing effort to see how such > > an RF baseline could be established. It is area in which people like > > to maneuver carefully, for obvious reasons. > > > > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020509/c4a02768/attachment.html From rkoenen intertrust.com Thu May 9 16:12:36 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:25 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing ... Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF53D5@exchange.epr.com> After having been chair of MPEG's requirements group for years I can assure you that the danger of defining Profiles too early is far greater than defining them too late. Rob -----Original Message----- From: David Strasser [mailto:dstrasse@ati.com] Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2024 14:53 To: 'Rob Koenen'; 'Daniel B. Miller' Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org; Gary Sullivan (E-mail) Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing ... I'm not sure how you can say it's a stable draft when JVT has not selected Profiles or Levels yet. -----Original Message----- From: Rob Koenen [ mailto:rkoenen@intertrust.com ] Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2024 3:56 PM To: 'Daniel B. Miller' Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org; Gary Sullivan (E-mail) Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing ... Dan, There are two ways to get involved in the work of the JVT: * through MPEG - in your case, through ANSI * through ITU-T - I do not know how that would work The best way is to contact Gary Sullivan, who heads the JVT. He also knows about ITU-T procedures. JVT is meeting this week, so Gary will be extremely busy. FYI - The codec is progressing to Committee Draft (and I believe an ITU equivalent thereof) this week; this is a very stable draft. Kind Regards, Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel B. Miller [ mailto:dan@on2.com ] > Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2024 12:48 > To: Rob Koenen > Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org; discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] To those concerned about > MPEG- 4 Licensing ... > > > Rob -- > > can you provide a pointer to information about how to get > involved in the > JVT (Mpeg4/p10) work? I assume it is similar to MPEG committee > membership, ie ANSI membership &/or corporate sponsor? > > ___ Dan Miller > (++,) CTO and founder, On2 Technologies > > On Fri, 3 May 2002, Rob Koenen wrote: > > > > > As for me, I'm looking at MPEG-4 Part 10 and hoping > > > that it is > > > > patent-free ;-) > > > > > > > > > I wouldn't hold your breath. Many companies are nervous about > > > submarine > > > patents. There's a strong anti-free-license movement in MPEG. > > > > Sweeping statements like these are very unhelpful. > > > > It may indeed be unlikley that full JVT codec is going to be RF > > (Royalty-Free). > > There is, however, a strong desire among many parties to try and > > establish a RF baseline. There is an ongoing effort to see how such > > an RF baseline could be established. It is area in which people like > > to maneuver carefully, for obvious reasons. > > > > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020509/8fef1178/attachment.html From wjf NetworkXXIII.com Fri May 10 11:27:36 2002 From: wjf NetworkXXIII.com (William J. Fulco) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:25 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Names / Part 10 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Let's agree to call it "AVC 264 Part 10.L" :-) > [SNIP] > Don't forget H.264. > [SNIP] > People from MPEG generally will call it > JVT, MPEG-4 Part 10, or AVC > [SNIP] > while ITU people generally use > H.26L, JVT or AVC. > [SNIP] > I suppose the real name is AVC and each organization will adopt the > standard as they see fit. For example MPEG-2 is also known as H.262. > > Seems like "MPEG-4 part 10" is being used commonly -- why it can't > just be MPEG-10 I don't know, that seems easier to remember. > [SNIP] > The JVT draft standard is due to become Part 10 of MPEG-4 > and also ITU-T H.264. Does anyone have a feel for the likely "popular" > name for the standard ? E.g. many people still refer to it as H.26L; > "14496 Part 10" isn't very catchy, nor is H.264. Any opinions ? From fp lx.it.pt Mon May 13 10:36:36 2002 From: fp lx.it.pt (Fernando Pereira) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:25 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Names / Part 10 References: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF53CA@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: <3CDF7B14.3FDC47A1@lx.it.pt> Hi ! Rob Koenen wrote: > > On this one, you need to talk to MPEG. > M4IF has no influence over names MPEG chooses. > Anyway, it will always be "MPEG-4 AVC". (just > like there is MPEG-2 AAC and MPEG-4 AAC It is clear now that for MPEG it is MPEG-4 Part 10 Advanced Video Coding (AVC) Regards Fernando -- Fernando Manuel Bernardo Pereira, Ph.D., Professor Instituto Superior T?cnico - Instituto de Telecomunica??es Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisboa, PORTUGAL Phone: + 351 21 8418460 Fax: + 351 21 8418472 E-mail: Fernando.Pereira@lx.it.pt WWW: http://www.img.lx.it.pt/~fp/ From fp lx.it.pt Mon May 13 18:40:38 2002 From: fp lx.it.pt (Fernando Pereira) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:25 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] To those concerned about MPEG-4 Licensing ... References: <3CD2FCAF.222BE1AA@envivio.com> Message-ID: <3CDFEC86.2212A5F0@lx.it.pt> Hi ! Yuval Fisher wrote: > > > As for me, I'm looking at MPEG-4 Part 10 and hoping that it is > > patent-free ;-) > > I wouldn't hold your breath. Many companies are nervous about submarine > patents. There's a strong anti-free-license movement in MPEG. Let me disagree with this statement ! As the current chairman of MPEG Requirements, I would claim that MPEG is doing everything to support the royalty free approach for the baseline profile of MPEG-4 part 10 (AVC) ... and there is a very large support within MPEG members. Of course there is also people with a (legitimate) different opinion but I would personally claim this is a minority. Let me also explain that the approach is not simply everything royalty free but a combination of a royalty free baseline profile with other more complex profiles not necessarily royalty free (but RAND). This combination may provide a good compromise between the two possible extreme alternatives. Finally let me inform that 2 profiles were defined for AVC/H.264 last week in Fairfax: BASELINE (to be royalty free) and MAIN (not necessarily royalty free). Regards Fernando Pereira -- Fernando Manuel Bernardo Pereira, Ph.D., Professor Instituto Superior T?cnico - Instituto de Telecomunica??es Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisboa, PORTUGAL Phone: + 351 21 8418460 Fax: + 351 21 8418472 E-mail: Fernando.Pereira@lx.it.pt WWW: http://www.img.lx.it.pt/~fp/ From craig pcube.com Tue May 14 12:51:33 2002 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:25 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] PR: =?iso-8859-1?Q?CableLabs=AE?= Promotes Pooling of =?iso-8859-1?Q?OCAP=81?= Patents Message-ID: CableLabs? Promotes Pooling of OCAP? Patents Mike Schwartz 303-661-9100 m.schwartz@cablelabs.com Louisville, Colorado, May 6, 2024 - Cable Television Laboratories, Inc. (CableLabs?) announced today that it will facilitate the formation of a patent pool for its OpenCable Application Platform (OCAP?) digital set-top box middleware specification. The objective is to create a "one-stop-shop" licensing mechanism for intellectual property rights that may be necessary to implement the OCAP specification. Patent holders who believe they have patent claims essential to the implementation of OCAP should submit a declaration to the law firm of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering (see below for contact information), with a copy going to CableLabs. CableLabs has hired Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering (WCP) to independently assess the essentiality of patent claims with respect to implementation of the OCAP standard. WCP was also chosen by the European DVB Project to serve as the patent coordinator for the Multimedia Home Platform (MHP) middleware specification. The OCAP specification is an adaptation of the MHP specification for North American cable systems. Under the arrangement with WCP, patent declarants will submit a $3,500 fee to WCP for each patent. For the single fee, WCP will assess claim essentiality for both the OCAP specification and the MHP specification. WCP will maintain the strictest confidentiality and independence when reviewing submitted declarations. When a "critical mass" of essential patent claims has been identified, the relevant patent holders will be invited to form a patent licensing pool. A license administrator for the patent pool will be chosen at that time. This process is similar to the process used by CableLabs in the successful formation of the MPEG-2 patent pool. It is CableLabs' strong preference that essential patent rights are made available on a royalty-free basis. Sun Microsystems has already agreed to make the required Sun Java technology available on a royalty-free basis. Patent holders participating in the CableLabs patent pool process may include a nominal royalty if offered on a fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory basis under the CableLabs OpenCable IPR Policy. Dr. Richard R. Green, President and CEO of CableLabs, said: "Now that the OCAP 1.0 Specification has been released, we can begin to identify the essential patents, and make sure that they are available to all OCAP implementers in an efficient manner, and on terms that are reasonable and non-discriminatory. As with the licensing scheme fostered by CableLabs for MPEG, our efforts to form a patent pool will serve to benefit vendors, patent holders, and consumers alike. The pool will also accelerate the introduction of OpenCable products and services into the marketplace." Additional information on the OpenCable? project, including a copy of the OCAP Specification, may be found at www.opencable.com.. CableLabs is a research and development consortium comprised of cable television system operators worldwide. CableLabs plans and funds research and development projects that will help cable companies take advantage of future opportunities and meet future challenges in the cable television industry. In addition, CableLabs acts as a clearinghouse to provide information on current and prospective technological developments that are of interest to the cable industry. CableLabs maintains web sites at www.cablelabs.com; www.packetcable.com; www.cablemodem.com; www.cablenet.org; and www.opencable.com. Patent declarations should be sent to: Wilmer Cutler & Pickering 2445 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037-1420 Attention: John W. Ryan or Ashok K. Mannava E-mail: jryan@wilmer.com or amannava@wilmer.com From dan ON2.COM Tue May 14 19:50:24 2002 From: dan ON2.COM (Daniel B. Miller) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:25 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] PR: =?iso-8859-1?Q?CableLabs=AE?= Promotes Pooling of =?iso-8859-1?Q?OCAP=81?= Patents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200205142250.g4EMoPGR023363@on2.com> funny, you'd think their law firm, which is taking the applications, might have studied anti-trust law. Apparently not. ___ Dan Miller (++,) CTO and founder, On2 Technologies On Tue, 14 May 2002, Craig Birkmaier wrote: > CableLabsŪ Promotes Pooling of OCAP Patents > > Mike Schwartz > 303-661-9100 > m.schwartz@cablelabs.com > > Louisville, Colorado, May 6, 2024 - Cable Television Laboratories, > Inc. (CableLabsŪ) announced today that it will facilitate the > formation of a patent pool for its OpenCable Application Platform > (OCAP) digital set-top box middleware specification. The objective > is to create a "one-stop-shop" licensing mechanism for intellectual > property rights that may be necessary to implement the OCAP > specification. > > Patent holders who believe they have patent claims essential to the > implementation of OCAP should submit a declaration to the law firm of > Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering (see below for contact information), with > a copy going to CableLabs. CableLabs has hired Wilmer, Cutler & > Pickering (WCP) to independently assess the essentiality of patent > claims with respect to implementation of the OCAP standard. WCP was > also chosen by the European DVB Project to serve as the patent > coordinator for the Multimedia Home Platform (MHP) middleware > specification. The OCAP specification is an adaptation of the MHP > specification for North American cable systems. > > Under the arrangement with WCP, patent declarants will submit a > $3,500 fee to WCP for each patent. For the single fee, WCP will > assess claim essentiality for both the OCAP specification and the MHP > specification. WCP will maintain the strictest confidentiality and > independence when reviewing submitted declarations. > > When a "critical mass" of essential patent claims has been > identified, the relevant patent holders will be invited to form a > patent licensing pool. A license administrator for the patent pool > will be chosen at that time. This process is similar to the process > used by CableLabs in the successful formation of the MPEG-2 patent > pool. > > It is CableLabs' strong preference that essential patent rights are > made available on a royalty-free basis. Sun Microsystems has already > agreed to make the required Sun Java technology available on a > royalty-free basis. Patent holders participating in the CableLabs > patent pool process may include a nominal royalty if offered on a > fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory basis under the CableLabs > OpenCable IPR Policy. > > Dr. Richard R. Green, President and CEO of CableLabs, said: "Now that > the OCAP 1.0 Specification has been released, we can begin to > identify the essential patents, and make sure that they are available > to all OCAP implementers in an efficient manner, and on terms that > are reasonable and non-discriminatory. As with the licensing scheme > fostered by CableLabs for MPEG, our efforts to form a patent pool > will serve to benefit vendors, patent holders, and consumers alike. > The pool will also accelerate the introduction of OpenCable products > and services into the marketplace." > > Additional information on the OpenCable project, including a copy of > the OCAP Specification, may be found at www.opencable.com.. > > CableLabs is a research and development consortium comprised of cable > television system operators worldwide. CableLabs plans and funds > research and development projects that will help cable companies take > advantage of future opportunities and meet future challenges in the > cable television industry. > > In addition, CableLabs acts as a clearinghouse to provide information > on current and prospective technological developments that are of > interest to the cable industry. CableLabs maintains web sites at > www.cablelabs.com; www.packetcable.com; www.cablemodem.com; > www.cablenet.org; and www.opencable.com. > > Patent declarations should be sent to: > > Wilmer Cutler & Pickering > 2445 M Street, N.W. > Washington, D.C. 20037-1420 > Attention: John W. Ryan or Ashok K. Mannava > E-mail: jryan@wilmer.com or amannava@wilmer.com > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From olivier.avaro rd.francetelecom.com Wed May 15 18:48:06 2002 From: olivier.avaro rd.francetelecom.com (AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/REN) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:25 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] Results M4IF Fairfax Meeting Message-ID: <571B06D35309794BA9204B5A090CC1015A9D51@lanmhs50.rd.francetelecom.fr> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative From rkoenen intertrust.com Wed May 15 11:17:48 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:25 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] Results M4IF Fairfax Meeting Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF546F@exchange.epr.com> [Rob] > > Statements like "I believe there are still patents" without further > > qualification will indeed be unhelpful. [Olivier] > I am not sure how statements as "I don't think there are > patents" really help as well and give any meaningful level > of confidence for a company that want to make a real business > out of it. This is exactly why we are going to have an open call for evidence. If there are no patents, there is not much else we can do (except funding a due diligence, which M4IF doesn't have the resources for). It is not the "I believe there are (no) patents" statements that we are after, but the presence or absence of concrete pointers to IP. > I would be happy to pay some money to Eric if his *own* > perception (very valuable of course) could be instead a > commitment to pay the royalties for me if some IP appears on > SA at a later point in time. If I understand this correctly, this is a rethorical statement and I am not sure it is helpful. Eric is not an insurance company, and I don't think any real insurance company would take this on. We are trying to confirm that what the people in the field believe to be true: there is no IP on SA. To gain more confidence, we will try to seek evidence to the contrary. If such evidence does not turn up, then SA implementers will be able to live with a little more comfort. If evidence does turn up, we will try to get licensing on RAND terms established by acting in our catalyst capacity. Best, Rob From jgreenhall divxnetworks.com Wed May 15 11:58:52 2002 From: jgreenhall divxnetworks.com (Jordan Greenhall) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:26 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] Results M4IF Fairfax Meeting In-Reply-To: <785C7AF49DC3514B98BF059A8ECBC772578824@mrsmith.divxnetworks.com> Message-ID: <785C7AF49DC3514B98BF059A8ECBC772117ECD@mrsmith.divxnetworks.com> What would it take to fund due diligence on the patents within MPEG-4 and/or H.26L? I would support a 3rd party evaluation, and I'm sure that many other members of M$IF would support it as well. There is so much FUD in this space, it is hard to know what is real and what is confusion. Jordan -----Original Message----- From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org] On Behalf Of Rob Koenen Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2024 10:18 AM To: 'AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/REN'; Rob Koenen; 'Eric Scheirer'; M4IF Discussion List (E-mail) Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] Results M4IF Fairfax Meeting [Rob] > > Statements like "I believe there are still patents" without further > > qualification will indeed be unhelpful. [Olivier] > I am not sure how statements as "I don't think there are > patents" really help as well and give any meaningful level > of confidence for a company that want to make a real business > out of it. This is exactly why we are going to have an open call for evidence. If there are no patents, there is not much else we can do (except funding a due diligence, which M4IF doesn't have the resources for). It is not the "I believe there are (no) patents" statements that we are after, but the presence or absence of concrete pointers to IP. > I would be happy to pay some money to Eric if his *own* > perception (very valuable of course) could be instead a > commitment to pay the royalties for me if some IP appears on > SA at a later point in time. If I understand this correctly, this is a rethorical statement and I am not sure it is helpful. Eric is not an insurance company, and I don't think any real insurance company would take this on. We are trying to confirm that what the people in the field believe to be true: there is no IP on SA. To gain more confidence, we will try to seek evidence to the contrary. If such evidence does not turn up, then SA implementers will be able to live with a little more comfort. If evidence does turn up, we will try to get licensing on RAND terms established by acting in our catalyst capacity. Best, Rob _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From wjf NetworkXXIII.com Thu May 16 00:33:57 2002 From: wjf NetworkXXIII.com (William J. Fulco) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:26 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] Results M4IF Fairfax Meeting In-Reply-To: <785C7AF49DC3514B98BF059A8ECBC772117ECD@mrsmith.divxnetworks.com> Message-ID: I would have to agree with Jordan - that gathering some "hard" (admittedly a squishy term in this field) about POSSIBLE IP would be good, however if there is a fear of a "submarine" patent - and someone does indeed have such - they're not going to tell anyone up front... are they? A "call for evidence" seems to me to be a way to distribute the search across all the potential actors in the space - but that's not the only way to my thinking. Wouldn't a general purpose patent-search see if there are any possible overlaps with MPEG-4/10 technologies? Don't most good IP law firms have people that do this kind of stuff? I'm sure they're even better at searching patents than the people that actually work in the USPTO. Seems like it would be a "simple" (for a price or course) matter to retain an IP law firm to do some patent searches and see what they come up with. Then it is a matter for people in places that count to decide what to do with the info... The only other "danger" I would see would be someone that's filed some patent disclosure documents - and then have a couple years to file the actual patent - I don't know (and doubt) that those are searchable... How hard is it to get this done? ++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 > [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Jordan Greenhall > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2024 10:59 AM > To: 'Rob Koenen'; 'AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/REN'; 'Eric Scheirer'; 'M4IF > Discussion List (E-mail)' > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] Results M4IF Fairfax Meeting > > > What would it take to fund due diligence on the patents within MPEG-4 > and/or H.26L? I would support a 3rd party evaluation, and I'm sure that > many other members of M$IF would support it as well. There is so much > FUD in this space, it is hard to know what is real and what is > confusion. > > Jordan [snip] > We are trying to confirm that what the people in the field believe > to be true: there is no IP on SA. > To gain more confidence, we will try to seek evidence to the contrary. > If such evidence does not turn up, then SA implementers will be able to > live with a little more comfort. If evidence does turn up, we will try > to get licensing on RAND terms established by acting in our catalyst > capacity. > > Best, > Rob From singer apple.com Thu May 16 10:34:08 2002 From: singer apple.com (Dave Singer) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:26 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] Results M4IF Fairfax Meeting In-Reply-To: <571B06D35309794BA9204B5A090CC1015A9D51@lanmhs50.rd.francetelecom.fr> References: <571B06D35309794BA9204B5A090CC1015A9D51@lanmhs50.rd.francetelecom.fr> Message-ID: At 17:48 +0200 5/15/02, AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/REN wrote: > > Statements like "I believe there are still patents" without further >> qualification will indeed be unhelpful. >I am not sure how statements as "I don't think there are patents" >really help as well and give any meaningfull level of confidence for >a company that want to make a real business out of it. > >I would be happy to pay some money to Eric if his *own* perception >(very valuable of course) could be instead a commitment to pay the >royalties for me if some IP appears on SA at a later point in time. > It makes no odds whether what you implement is a standard or not, or whether you have paid for some patent IPR or not: you can always live in fear of a new patent holder appearing and demanding compensation. This is part of making and shipping any product. Rather than live in fear, we have to assess for every product what the risk and gain may be, and that risk assessment can helpfully include the un-indemnifying statements of "those expert in the field". -- David Singer Apple Computer/QuickTime From dan on2.com Thu May 16 11:29:26 2002 From: dan on2.com (Daniel B. Miller) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:26 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] Results M4IF Fairfax Meeting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200205161429.g4GETQic006249@on2.com> It's not that hard to do a search, but of course you're trying to prove a negative -- that there doesn't exist a patent with defensible claims XXX. Another problem is that you will probably find patents that DO claim XXX but in fact were poorly researched by the patent examiner. Lack of funding in the PTO and a general attitude of letting the courts resolve conflicts have created a situation where gobs of indefensible patents based on prior art have been published. So what do you do when you find those patents? Now you have to search THEIR validity with more patent searching, and probably pay some IP atty to rate their defensibility... and the search goes on. Sort of reminds me of the Halting Problem -- I doubt there is any way to predictably rate the likelihood of being sued by someone for using a specific piece of IP. What you really want to do is not find patents that could be brought against you, but find patents and academic research that could be used to _defend_ you against such a suit. So, my suggestion would be (since apparently we're throwing money around this week) to pay someone to track down the provenance of all the major concepts in H.26L, with the mandate to attempt to find prior art in the PD -- expired patents, published papers with no known associated patents, etc. Prepare a strong, general defense rather than trying to identify all possible offensive maneuvers that could be brought against you. ___ Dan Miller (++,) CTO and founder, On2 Technologies On Wed, 15 May 2002, William J. Fulco wrote: > I would have to agree with Jordan - that gathering some "hard" (admittedly a > squishy term in this field) about POSSIBLE IP would be good, however if > there is a fear of a "submarine" patent - and someone does indeed have > such - they're not going to tell anyone up front... are they? A "call for > evidence" seems to me to be a way to distribute the search across all the > potential actors in the space - but that's not the only way to my thinking. > > Wouldn't a general purpose patent-search see if there are any possible > overlaps with MPEG-4/10 technologies? Don't most good IP law firms have > people that do this kind of stuff? I'm sure they're even better at searching > patents than the people that actually work in the USPTO. Seems like it > would be a "simple" (for a price or course) matter to retain an IP law firm > to do some patent searches and see what they come up with. Then it is a > matter for people in places that count to decide what to do with the info... > > The only other "danger" I would see would be someone that's filed some > patent disclosure documents - and then have a couple years to file the > actual patent - I don't know (and doubt) that those are searchable... > > How hard is it to get this done? > > ++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 > > [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Jordan Greenhall > > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2024 10:59 AM > > To: 'Rob Koenen'; 'AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/REN'; 'Eric Scheirer'; 'M4IF > > Discussion List (E-mail)' > > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] Results M4IF Fairfax Meeting > > > > > > What would it take to fund due diligence on the patents within MPEG-4 > > and/or H.26L? I would support a 3rd party evaluation, and I'm sure that > > many other members of M$IF would support it as well. There is so much > > FUD in this space, it is hard to know what is real and what is > > confusion. > > > > Jordan > > [snip] > > We are trying to confirm that what the people in the field believe > > to be true: there is no IP on SA. > > To gain more confidence, we will try to seek evidence to the contrary. > > If such evidence does not turn up, then SA implementers will be able to > > live with a little more comfort. If evidence does turn up, we will try > > to get licensing on RAND terms established by acting in our catalyst > > capacity. > > > > Best, > > Rob > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From wjf NetworkXXIII.com Thu May 16 10:20:37 2002 From: wjf NetworkXXIII.com (William J. Fulco) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:26 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] Results M4IF Fairfax Meeting In-Reply-To: <200205161429.g4GETQic006249@on2.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org > [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Daniel B. Miller > Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2024 7:29 AM > To: 'M4IF Discussion List (E-mail)' > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] Results M4IF Fairfax Meeting > Sort of reminds me of the Halting Problem -- Where is Alan Turing when you really need him :-) First time I heard about the halting problems was in a class section called "Unsolved Problems in Artificial Intelligence" ... Thee next time I ran into that particular category was a couple years later while looking into the patent system :-) From kldi ei.tum.de Wed May 22 20:22:36 2002 From: kldi ei.tum.de (Klaus Diepold) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:26 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Corona decoder made available openly ? Message-ID: <008c01c201b5$4506ff30$6469bb81@ldv.etechnik.tumuenchen.de> Friends and colleagues, I recently picked up a rumour concerning Microsoft's Corona Codec. The rumour says that MS will potentially make available the sources to the Corona decoder. Also the rumour states that in future it will be possible to store video content in the Windows Media format and transcode it from there into any other known video format. I think that this would actually mean that MPEG-LA and the license holder seriously have to hurry up coming to grips with feasible license terms. My question is if those rumours can be kind of verified or if it is just a rumour ? Anybody any kind of deeper insights or comments on that ? Cheers Klaus Diepold From jeffh bisk.com Thu May 23 12:23:35 2002 From: jeffh bisk.com (Jeff Handy) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:26 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What the?? Message-ID: <7766C1C51719A44B92C2461F6F0C5A0937659C@mail.corp.bisk.com> Wasn't it On2 that decided to file a complaint with the DOJ regarding MPEG-4?? http://library.northernlight.com/FC20020514720000124.html?cb=0&dx=1004&s c=0#doc Interesting... Jeff Handy - Senior 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 craig pcube.com Thu May 23 15:13:31 2002 From: craig pcube.com (Craig Birkmaier) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:26 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What the?? In-Reply-To: <7766C1C51719A44B92C2461F6F0C5A0937659C@mail.corp.bisk.com> References: <7766C1C51719A44B92C2461F6F0C5A0937659C@mail.corp.bisk.com> Message-ID: At 11:23 AM -0400 5/23/02, Jeff Handy wrote: >Wasn't it On2 that decided to file a complaint with the DOJ regarding >MPEG-4?? > Well to be completely accurate, they filed a complaint with the DOJ suggesting that MPEG-LA has no legal standing as a licensing pool for MPEG-4 visual; that the waiver that the DOJ granted to MPEG-LA is only applicable to the licensing of MPEG-2. It is important to note the differences in the levels of support for the MPEG-4 standard, and support for MPEG-LA's "fair and non-discriminatory" licensing terms... -- Regards Craig Birkmaier Pcube Labs From dan on2.com Thu May 23 15:27:31 2002 From: dan on2.com (Daniel B. Miller) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:26 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What the?? In-Reply-To: <7766C1C51719A44B92C2461F6F0C5A0937659C@mail.corp.bisk.com> Message-ID: <200205231827.g4NIRVmv029400@on2.com> yes, that was us. I don't see any contradiction in our position here. We believe that patent pooling is unlawful as well as not conducive to competition. OTOH, we are willing to support any format that our customers want and are willing to pay for. Note that we are simply extending our platform to support existing 3rd party codecs. Which codecs are used, and what licensing terms are arranged to get them, is not up to us. ___ Dan Miller (++,) CTO and founder, On2 Technologies On Thu, 23 May 2002, Jeff Handy wrote: > Wasn't it On2 that decided to file a complaint with the DOJ regarding > MPEG-4?? > > http://library.northernlight.com/FC20020514720000124.html?cb=0&dx=1004&s > c=0#doc > > > Interesting... > > > > Jeff Handy - Senior Digital Media Specialist > Bisk Education - Technology Development > World Headquarters - Tampa, FL > 800-874-7877 x360 > jeffh@bisk.com > http://www.bisk.com > > Cleaner Forum COWmunity Leader > http://www.creativecow.net/cgi-bin/select_forum.cgi?forum=cleaner > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From jeffh bisk.com Thu May 23 15:43:41 2002 From: jeffh bisk.com (Jeff Handy) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:26 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What the?? Message-ID: <7766C1C51719A44B92C2461F6F0C5A0945C4C5@mail.corp.bisk.com> Well, that does clarify the facts. I just didn't know much about the allegations, I guess. Thanks guys. Jeff Handy - Senior 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 dan on2.com Thu May 23 16:11:47 2002 From: dan on2.com (Daniel B. Miller) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:26 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What the?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200205231911.g4NJBmmv030510@on2.com> well stated Craig. As Rob often points out, MPEG and MPEG-LA are very different animals. We have absolutely no beef with the technical elements of the standard, nor with the idea of a standard itself. Our problem is with how MPEG-LA has managed to promulgate the notion that they have the right to act as a collusionary broker for 18 companies that are supposed to be competing, not fixing prices. ___ Dan Miller (++,) CTO and founder, On2 Technologies On Thu, 23 May 2002, Craig Birkmaier wrote: > At 11:23 AM -0400 5/23/02, Jeff Handy wrote: > >Wasn't it On2 that decided to file a complaint with the DOJ regarding > >MPEG-4?? > > > > Well to be completely accurate, they filed a complaint with the DOJ > suggesting that MPEG-LA has no legal standing as a licensing pool for > MPEG-4 visual; that the waiver that the DOJ granted to MPEG-LA is > only applicable to the licensing of MPEG-2. > > It is important to note the differences in the levels of support for > the MPEG-4 standard, and support for MPEG-LA's "fair and > non-discriminatory" licensing terms... > > -- > Regards > Craig Birkmaier > Pcube Labs > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From rkoenen intertrust.com Thu May 23 17:33:31 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:26 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What the?? Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF55EE@exchange.epr.com> > We believe that patent pooling is unlawful as well as not > conducive to competition. Competition already exists, with or without MPEG-4. MPEG-4 needs to compete to several alternative proprietary solutions. Many prospective licensees believe that pooling is a must in order for MPEG-4 to be able to stand a chance in this competition. They are of the opinion that obtaining separate licenses from all the individual patent owners (20+) is only theoretical option, never a practical one. M4IF believes this too. M4IF is also of the opinion that the more pools there are for the same IP, the better. M4IF has adopted multiple resolutions to this effect. (They are all online by the way, see http://www.m4if.org/public/index.php?sub=m4if) M4IF also believes that an interoperable ecosystem fosters competition between many technology providers, and moreover, creates an environment in which they have a reason to exist to begin with. Without MPEG-4 many smaller companies have little reason to exist. With a standard like MPEG-4, they can plug into the ecosystem, fill their niche, and be successful contenders. See e.g. http://www.m4if.org/resources/smw02/koenen.pdf Creating this environment that encourages competition between many requires easy access to licenses for its essential patents. The last M4IF meeting confirmed that the licenses need to be Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (RAND) in *all* of MPEG-4's markets. The meeting also agreed that "reasonable" implies "competitive", as in "allows competitive MPEG-4 products and services to be built and offered". See http://www.m4if.org/public/documents/vault/m4-out-20017.php Kind Regards, Rob From MTayer aerocast.com Thu May 23 18:24:12 2002 From: MTayer aerocast.com (Marc Tayer) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:26 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What the?? Message-ID: To elaborate, it is incorrect to say that "patent pools are unlawful." A patent pool may be determined to be legal or illegal, depending on the specifics. In other words, the devil is in the details. Legal and antitrust authorities in the U.S. and other countries have examined many different patent pooling arrangements over the years. Key concepts include whether the pool is deemed to be pro-competitive or anti-competitive, and what the legal relationship is amongst and between the licensors. For example, in the case of MPEG-2, the pool was generally felt to be pro-competitive, since MPEG-LA made it much more convenient (and probably much cheaper) for companies wishing to compete in the MPEG-2 arena to obtain a license to the vast majority of essential patents from one source. Perhaps a useful analogy, although there are some important differences, is the concept of a monopoly. A monopoly is not necessarily illegal by virtue of its existence. It can be ruled illegal, for example, if it results in anti-competitive or anti-consumer behavior. Or it can be ruled legal, a so-called "legal monopoly." Hopefully a new and improved proposal is imminent. As many have pointed out, the clock is ticking and there are entrenched companies protecting their turf, hoping that the MPEG-4 licensors shoot themselves (and the standard with it) in their collective feet. -----Original Message----- From: Rob Koenen [mailto:rkoenen@intertrust.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2024 4:34 PM To: 'Daniel B. Miller'; Jeff Handy Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org; discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What the?? > We believe that patent pooling is unlawful as well as not > conducive to competition. Competition already exists, with or without MPEG-4. MPEG-4 needs to compete to several alternative proprietary solutions. Many prospective licensees believe that pooling is a must in order for MPEG-4 to be able to stand a chance in this competition. They are of the opinion that obtaining separate licenses from all the individual patent owners (20+) is only theoretical option, never a practical one. M4IF believes this too. M4IF is also of the opinion that the more pools there are for the same IP, the better. M4IF has adopted multiple resolutions to this effect. (They are all online by the way, see http://www.m4if.org/public/index.php?sub=m4if) M4IF also believes that an interoperable ecosystem fosters competition between many technology providers, and moreover, creates an environment in which they have a reason to exist to begin with. Without MPEG-4 many smaller companies have little reason to exist. With a standard like MPEG-4, they can plug into the ecosystem, fill their niche, and be successful contenders. See e.g. http://www.m4if.org/resources/smw02/koenen.pdf Creating this environment that encourages competition between many requires easy access to licenses for its essential patents. The last M4IF meeting confirmed that the licenses need to be Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (RAND) in *all* of MPEG-4's markets. The meeting also agreed that "reasonable" implies "competitive", as in "allows competitive MPEG-4 products and services to be built and offered". See http://www.m4if.org/public/documents/vault/m4-out-20017.php Kind Regards, Rob _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From wjf NetworkXXIII.com Fri May 24 09:09:31 2002 From: wjf NetworkXXIII.com (William J. Fulco) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:26 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What the?? In-Reply-To: <200205231911.g4NJBmmv030510@on2.com> Message-ID: Dan et. al > -----Original Message----- > From: discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org > [mailto:discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Daniel B. Miller > Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2024 12:12 PM > [SNIP] > MPEG-LA has managed to promulgate the notion that they have the > right to act as a collusionary broker for 18 companies that are supposed > to be competing, not fixing prices. > Question (short response is OK): - I wasn't paying attention back then (too busy building actual MPEG-4 product I guess :-) - when/how did MPEG-LA decide that it got the right to do for MPEG-4 what they do for MPEG-2? Did they just wake-up one day, file a press-release and turn the lawyers loose? Did MPEG ask them to take this on? ++Bill --------------------------------- William J. Fulco wjf@NetworkXXIII.com 310-927-4263 (Cell) Ne cede malis sed contra audientor ito! From rkoenen intertrust.com Fri May 24 09:24:08 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:26 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What the?? Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF562B@exchange.epr.com> > Question (short response is OK): - I wasn't paying attention back then (too > busy building actual MPEG-4 product I guess :-) - when/how did MPEG-LA > decide that it got the right to do for MPEG-4 what they do for MPEG-2? This was not MPEG LA's decision, but the decision of the patent holders. They get to choose who represents them. MPEG never asked MPEG LA anything. M4IF suggested end of '99 that MPEG LA could be a candidate to facilitate the evaluation of patents for essentiality and to call the first meeting of patent holders. After that, it was in the hands of the owners of essential patents. I have not been in the discussions, but I believe that the patent holders asking MPEGLA to act as the licensing agent was not a foregone conclusion, when they got to make that decision after a few meetings. Best, Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: William J. Fulco [mailto:wjf@NetworkXXIII.com] > Sent: Friday, May 24, 2024 8:10 > To: Daniel B. Miller; Craig Birkmaier > Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org; discuss-admin@lists.m4if.org > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What the?? > > > > ++Bill > --------------------------------- > William J. Fulco > wjf@NetworkXXIII.com > 310-927-4263 (Cell) > > Ne cede malis sed contra audientor ito! > > From rkoenen intertrust.com Fri May 24 09:26:56 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:27 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Corona decoder made available openly ? Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF562D@exchange.epr.com> Hadn't heard the rumor, but that doesn't mean anything. There is already a great need for speedy resolution of licensing. I am not sure that these developments make a difference ... I don't think the situation can become more urgent than it already is. rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Klaus Diepold [mailto:kldi@ei.tum.de] > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2024 10:23 > To: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: [M4IF Discuss] Corona decoder made available openly ? > > > Friends and colleagues, > > I recently picked up a rumour concerning Microsoft's Corona Codec. > The rumour says that MS will potentially make available the > sources to the Corona decoder. > Also the rumour states that in future it will be possible to store video > content in the Windows Media format and transcode it from there into any > other known video format. > > I think that this would actually mean that MPEG-LA and the license holder > seriously have to hurry up coming to grips with feasible license terms. > > My question is if those rumours can be kind of verified or if > it is just a > rumour ? > > Anybody any kind of deeper insights or comments on that ? > > Cheers > Klaus Diepold > > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.m4if.org > http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From wjf NetworkXXIII.com Fri May 24 09:43:27 2002 From: wjf NetworkXXIII.com (William J. Fulco) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:27 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] What the?? In-Reply-To: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF562B@exchange.epr.com> Message-ID: Rob, Thanks. ++Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Koenen [mailto:rkoenen@intertrust.com] > Sent: Friday, May 24, 2024 8:24 AM > To: 'William J. Fulco' > Cc: discuss@lists.m4if.org > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] What the?? > > > > when/how did MPEG-LA > > decide that it got the right to do for MPEG-4 what they do for MPEG-2? > > This was not MPEG LA's decision, but the decision of the > patent holders. They get to choose who represents them. From olivier.avaro rd.francetelecom.com Mon May 27 22:06:32 2002 From: olivier.avaro rd.francetelecom.com (AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/REN) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:27 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] Results M4IF Fairfax Meeting Message-ID: <571B06D35309794BA9204B5A090CC101798C79@lanmhs50.rd.francetelecom.fr> Hi Rob, all, As David pointed out, the issue is how we can provide sufficient confidence to a company wrt to IP so that it can peacefully make business with the MPEG standard or part of it. The only valid solution I am aware of is the patent pool model. It works very well when done fast and when the licensing model is reasonable for the adressed market. It gives a one stop shopping for the license, it incitates patent holders to join the pool rather than pursuing technology users, ... (more arguments if you want). Strange indeed is the fact that a technology on which there is supposedly no IP will be in a much more difficult condition to market : there is no "blessing authority" that can guarantee anything, the risk of geting stuck if someone claim IP is higher, ... (more arguments if you want). I agree that the assesment from experts from the field brings some level of confidence. In this particular field where many companies have done R&D for the last 30 years, I would still evaluate the risk too high but it is indeed a matter of taste. I doubt as well that companies that have patents would declare this upon request even from M4IF (why should I do this ? just to say hello ? when it is about seting a patent pool, the issue is different), the same way I doubt people having IP on AVC will declare this to MPEG (why should I do this ? just to have it removed by the royalty free fanatists ?). Maybe the best way to handle the structured audio case is that an existing patent pool extends its license to structured audio. I understand that people that just want SA may pay more than free (but they can also take the risk if they want to). Since the number of patent on SA is supposed to be low, the patent owners in the current patent pool won't be much diluted. On the contrary, the value of the license will be augmented with SA. In case patents on SA appear, there will be a "home" to process them quickly. The audio (after all it's audio) or the Systems (SA can be transmitted in Systems streams) pool could be such "home". Kind regards, Olivier > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Rob Koenen [mailto:rkoenen@intertrust.com] > Envoy? : mercredi 15 mai 2002 19:18 > ? : AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/REN; Rob Koenen; 'Eric Scheirer'; M4IF > Discussion List (E-mail) > Objet : RE: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] Results M4IF > Fairfax Meeting > > > [Rob] > > > Statements like "I believe there are still patents" > without further > > > qualification will indeed be unhelpful. > > [Olivier] > > I am not sure how statements as "I don't think there are > > patents" really help as well and give any meaningful level > > of confidence for a company that want to make a real business > > out of it. > > This is exactly why we are going to have an open call for > evidence. If there are no patents, there is not much else > we can do (except funding a due diligence, which M4IF doesn't > have the resources for). > > It is not the "I believe there are (no) patents" statements that > we are after, but the presence or absence of concrete pointers > to IP. > > > I would be happy to pay some money to Eric if his *own* > > perception (very valuable of course) could be instead a > > commitment to pay the royalties for me if some IP appears on > > SA at a later point in time. > > If I understand this correctly, this is a rethorical statement and > I am not sure it is helpful. Eric is not an insurance company, and > I don't think any real insurance company would take this on. > > We are trying to confirm that what the people in the field believe > to be true: there is no IP on SA. > To gain more confidence, we will try to seek evidence to the > contrary. If such evidence does not turn up, then SA implementers > will be able to live with a little more comfort. If evidence does > turn up, we will try to get licensing on RAND terms established > by acting in our catalyst capacity. > > Best, > Rob > From wjf NetworkXXIII.com Mon May 27 13:50:52 2002 From: wjf NetworkXXIII.com (William J. Fulco) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:27 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] FYI: Law would limit antitrust liability of standards groups In-Reply-To: <200205231911.g4NJBmmv030510@on2.com> Message-ID: Law would limit antitrust liability of standards groups By George Leopold, EE Times May 24, 2024 (2:45 PM) URL: http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20020524S0094 WASHINGTON - Key members of the U.S. House of Representatives proposed legislation Friday (May 24) that would amend the antitrust provisions of the National Cooperative Research Act (NCRA) to limit the liability of standards organizations. The law provides that if certain joint ventures notify antitrust enforcers of their activities, their liability in antitrust litigation is limited to single damages. The legislation extending NCRA protections to standards groups was introduced by ranking members of the House Judiciary and House Science committees. They said the proposed amendment provides that standards groups would no longer be subject to private "treble damage" lawsuits as long as they made their deliberations transparent to antitrust agencies. "This legislation will enhance U.S. competitiveness in world markets while providing open communication with the Justice Department so they can vigorously enforce our antitrust laws," said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Sensenbrenner said the proposal has bipartisan support in the House. Joint-venture partners are currently required to file notices with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice when collaborating on research in order to be covered under NCRA. A former FTC official said the proposal may have little impact on current procedures. "I'm not particularly sure that an NCRA notification scheme will have that much of an impact on the activities of standard setting [organizations]," he said. Copyright 2002 C CMP Media, LLC From edsmedia alum.mit.edu Mon May 27 21:25:44 2002 From: edsmedia alum.mit.edu (Eric Scheirer) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:27 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] Results M4IF Fairfax Meeting References: <571B06D35309794BA9204B5A090CC101798C79@lanmhs50.rd.francetelecom.fr> Message-ID: <03cb01c205de$4cd066c0$0201a8c0@ne.client2.attbi.com> > Maybe the best way to handle the structured > audio case is that an existing patent pool > extends its license to structured audio. I > understand that people that just want SA may > pay more than free (but they can also take the > risk if they want to). Since the number of > patent on SA is supposed to be low, the patent > owners in the current patent pool won't be much > diluted. On the contrary, the value of the > license will be augmented with SA. In case > patents on SA appear, there will be a "home" > to process them quickly. Well then, this is really what it's all about, isn't it? Let's pretend that patent holders for other parts of MPEG-4 actually hold patents on patent-free parts as well, and pay them royalties, because it makes us feel more "peacefully" that way. Let me say again: Structured Audio and AudioBIFS require no licenses from anyone in order to implement. I am an expert in this field that has studied the patent terrain extensively and can provide citations to appropriate patent-free prior art upon request. If anyone disagrees, please cite specifically which patents owned by which companies require licenses, or otherwise stop creating noise and trying to confuse the situation. With all appropriate respect, -- Eric ---- Eric D. Scheirer, Ph.D. edsmedia@alum.mit.edu +1 617 666 8905 http://sound.media.mit.edu/~eds ----- Original Message ----- From: "AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/REN" To: "Rob Koenen" ; "Eric Scheirer" ; "M4IF Discussion List (E-mail)" Sent: Monday, May 27, 2024 3:06 PM Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] Results M4IF Fairfax Meeting Hi Rob, all, As David pointed out, the issue is how we can provide sufficient confidence to a company wrt to IP so that it can peacefully make business with the MPEG standard or part of it. The only valid solution I am aware of is the patent pool model. It works very well when done fast and when the licensing model is reasonable for the adressed market. It gives a one stop shopping for the license, it incitates patent holders to join the pool rather than pursuing technology users, ... (more arguments if you want). Strange indeed is the fact that a technology on which there is supposedly no IP will be in a much more difficult condition to market : there is no "blessing authority" that can guarantee anything, the risk of geting stuck if someone claim IP is higher, ... (more arguments if you want). I agree that the assesment from experts from the field brings some level of confidence. In this particular field where many companies have done R&D for the last 30 years, I would still evaluate the risk too high but it is indeed a matter of taste. I doubt as well that companies that have patents would declare this upon request even from M4IF (why should I do this ? just to say hello ? when it is about seting a patent pool, the issue is different), the same way I doubt people having IP on AVC will declare this to MPEG (why should I do this ? just to have it removed by the royalty free fanatists ?). Maybe the best way to handle the structured audio case is that an existing patent pool extends its license to structured audio. I understand that people that just want SA may pay more than free (but they can also take the risk if they want to). Since the number of patent on SA is supposed to be low, the patent owners in the current patent pool won't be much diluted. On the contrary, the value of the license will be augmented with SA. In case patents on SA appear, there will be a "home" to process them quickly. The audio (after all it's audio) or the Systems (SA can be transmitted in Systems streams) pool could be such "home". Kind regards, Olivier > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Rob Koenen [mailto:rkoenen@intertrust.com] > Envoy? : mercredi 15 mai 2002 19:18 > ? : AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/REN; Rob Koenen; 'Eric Scheirer'; M4IF > Discussion List (E-mail) > Objet : RE: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] Results M4IF > Fairfax Meeting > > > [Rob] > > > Statements like "I believe there are still patents" > without further > > > qualification will indeed be unhelpful. > > [Olivier] > > I am not sure how statements as "I don't think there are > > patents" really help as well and give any meaningful level > > of confidence for a company that want to make a real business > > out of it. > > This is exactly why we are going to have an open call for > evidence. If there are no patents, there is not much else > we can do (except funding a due diligence, which M4IF doesn't > have the resources for). > > It is not the "I believe there are (no) patents" statements that > we are after, but the presence or absence of concrete pointers > to IP. > > > I would be happy to pay some money to Eric if his *own* > > perception (very valuable of course) could be instead a > > commitment to pay the royalties for me if some IP appears on > > SA at a later point in time. > > If I understand this correctly, this is a rethorical statement and > I am not sure it is helpful. Eric is not an insurance company, and > I don't think any real insurance company would take this on. > > We are trying to confirm that what the people in the field believe > to be true: there is no IP on SA. > To gain more confidence, we will try to seek evidence to the > contrary. If such evidence does not turn up, then SA implementers > will be able to live with a little more comfort. If evidence does > turn up, we will try to get licensing on RAND terms established > by acting in our catalyst capacity. > > Best, > Rob > From rkoenen intertrust.com Mon May 27 23:40:26 2002 From: rkoenen intertrust.com (Rob Koenen) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:27 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] Results M4IF Fairfax Meeting Message-ID: <3C124172E7FDD511B510000347426D59AF565C@exchange.epr.com> > Maybe the best way to handle the structured audio case is > that an existing patent pool extends its license to > structured audio. If there are no patents (known) on SAM that's not only raising huge anti-trust issues, it's plain nonsensical - how would you extend a patent pool with non-existent or unknown patents? If there *are* patents on SA (which we will try and find out) then things would be different. But even then a company like Soundball will rightly ask "why do I need to license (e.g.) MPEG-4 AAC patents if I only want to implement SA?" > I doubt as well that companies that have patents would declare > this upon request even from M4IF (why should I do this ? just > to say hello ? when it is about seting a patent pool, the > issue is different), Please read the resolutions of the last M4IF meeting - IF there are patents reported, that's *exactly* what this is about. (http://www.m4if.org/public/documents/vault/m4-out-20016.php) Best, Rob From olivier.avaro rd.francetelecom.com Tue May 28 09:19:04 2002 From: olivier.avaro rd.francetelecom.com (AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/REN) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:27 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] Results M4IF Fairfax Meeting Message-ID: <571B06D35309794BA9204B5A090CC101798CAF@lanmhs50.rd.francetelecom.fr> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative From olivier.avaro rd.francetelecom.com Tue May 28 09:36:27 2002 From: olivier.avaro rd.francetelecom.com (AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/REN) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:27 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] Results M4IF Fairfax Meeting Message-ID: <571B06D35309794BA9204B5A090CC101798CB2@lanmhs50.rd.francetelecom.fr> Dear Rob, all, > > Maybe the best way to handle the structured audio case is > > that an existing patent pool extends its license to > > structured audio. > > If there are no patents (known) on SAM that's not only raising > huge anti-trust issues, it's plain nonsensical - how would you > extend a patent pool with non-existent or unknown patents? Please read my mail :-) 1- If someone believes there is no patent, he can take the risk to implement SA even if SA is in the scope of a patent pool. Some companies are e.g. using part of MPEG-2 without paying anything to MPEG-LA because they believe that the part of MPEG-2 they are using is patent free. 2- The "scope" of a patent pool is broader that the set of patents, e.g., it's MPEG-2 Visual at Prof. x. There are lot of technology in Prof. x not covered by patents. Are you saying this is nonsensical and raise huge anti-trust issues ? At least it has been working for the last couple of years :-) All I am saying is that SA should be in the scope of an existing patent pool. It will just make our life simpler. > If there *are* patents on SA (which we will try and find out) > then things would be different. But even then a company like > Soundball will rightly ask "why do I need to license (e.g.) > MPEG-4 AAC patents if I only want to implement SA?" > Again, they don't need to. You are never forced to do these things (well, in some case where there are infringement indeed you can ;-) > > I doubt as well that companies that have patents would declare > > this upon request even from M4IF (why should I do this ? just > > to say hello ? when it is about seting a patent pool, the > > issue is different), > > Please read the resolutions of the last M4IF meeting - IF there > are patents reported, that's *exactly* what this is about. > (http://www.m4if.org/public/documents/vault/m4-out-20016.php) Why should patent holder report patents ? I am not sure we are going to prove anything if there are no answer. (Same for JVT BTW).But if people feels that the risk is lower if nobody responds, this is fine with me. cu, O. From dan on2.com Tue May 28 11:47:20 2002 From: dan on2.com (Daniel B. Miller) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:27 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] Results M4IF Fairfax Meeting In-Reply-To: <571B06D35309794BA9204B5A090CC101798CAF@lanmhs50.rd.francetelecom.fr> Message-ID: <200205281447.g4SElKmv003878@on2.com> ISTM that the 'submarine' patents will most likely belong to companies or individuals NOT involved in the standards process, so I don't see what this will achieve except enriching companies which already are making money on patents _some_ of us might legitimately question. ___ Dan Miller (++,) CTO and founder, On2 Technologies On Tue, 28 May 2002, AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/REN wrote: > Dear Eric, all, > > > Let me say again: Structured Audio and AudioBIFS > > require no licenses from anyone in order to implement. > > I am an expert in this field that has studied the > > patent terrain extensively and can provide citations > > to appropriate patent-free prior art upon request. > > If anyone disagrees, please cite specifically which > > patents owned by which companies require licenses, or > > otherwise stop creating noise and trying to confuse > > the situation. > > I can understand my statement can be confusing. I think however that yours is wrong. Making companies believe that just because you are saying so (in I believe good faith and very deep knowledge) they have clearance on the SA technology is for the least very naive. > > Kind regards, > > Olivier > From RXH dolby.com Tue May 28 13:11:44 2002 From: RXH dolby.com (Haidamus, Ramzi) Date: Wed Jul 23 13:51:27 2003 Subject: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] Results M4IF Fairfax Meeting Message-ID: I doubt that an open conversation on this reflector will answer your questions as to whether someone "out there" has a patent on SA. The best you can do is have an open call for patent evaluation for SA, very similarly to what we did for the three audio profiles. And even then, as with all patent pools, there will be no guarantees that all the patent owners have come forward since some companies have a policy against joining patent pools while others prefer to wait for the "success" of the standard before joining. Ramzi -----Original Message----- From: AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/REN [mailto:olivier.avaro@rd.francetelecom.com] Sent: Monday, May 27, 2024 11:36 PM To: Rob Koenen; Eric Scheirer; M4IF Discussion List (E-mail) Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] Results M4IF Fairfax Meeting Dear Rob, all, > > Maybe the best way to handle the structured audio case is > > that an existing patent pool extends its license to > > structured audio. > > If there are no patents (known) on SAM that's not only raising > huge anti-trust issues, it's plain nonsensical - how would you > extend a patent pool with non-existent or unknown patents? Please read my mail :-) 1- If someone believes there is no patent, he can take the risk to implement SA even if SA is in the scope of a patent pool. Some companies are e.g. using part of MPEG-2 without paying anything to MPEG-LA because they believe that the part of MPEG-2 they are using is patent free. 2- The "scope" of a patent pool is broader that the set of patents, e.g., it's MPEG-2 Visual at Prof. x. There are lot of technology in Prof. x not covered by patents. Are you saying this is nonsensical and raise huge anti-trust issues ? At least it has been working for the last couple of years :-) All I am saying is that SA should be in the scope of an existing patent pool. It will just make our life simpler. > If there *are* patents on SA (which we will try and find out) > then things would be different. But even then a company like > Soundball will rightly ask "why do I need to license (e.g.) > MPEG-4 AAC patents if I only want to implement SA?" > Again, they don't need to. You are never forced to do these things (well, in some case where there are infringement indeed you can ;-) > > I doubt as well that companies that have patents would declare > > this upon request even from M4IF (why should I do this ? just > > to say hello ? when it is about seting a patent pool, the > > issue is different), > > Please read the resolutions of the last M4IF meeting - IF there > are patents reported, that's *exactly* what this is about. > (http://www.m4if.org/public/documents/vault/m4-out-20016.php) Why should patent holder report patents ? I am not sure we are going to prove anything if there are no answer. (Same for JVT BTW).But if people feels that the risk is lower if nobody responds, this is fine with me. cu, O. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------------- This message (including any attachments) may contain confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose. If you are not the intended recipient, delete this message. If you are not the intended recipient, disclosing, copying, distributing, or taking any action based on this message is strictly prohibited.