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

[Dr.Ishfaq Ahmad]

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" <omid.moghadam   intel.com>
To: "Ralph Neff" <neff   packetvideo.com>; "'Jeyendran Balakrishnan'"
<jp   skystream.com>
Cc: "M4IF member list (E-mail)" <m4ifmembers   lists.m4if.org>; "M4IF
Discussion List (E-mail)" <discuss   lists.m4if.org>
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
>