[M4IFmembers] RE: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-4 patent issues and aca demic contribution s to the standards

Mon May 6 15:47:49 EDT 2002

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