[M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] Results M4IF Fairfax Meeting

[Rob Koenen]

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
> 
>