[M4IF Discuss] What the??

[Marc Tayer]

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