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

[AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/REN]

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]
> Envoyé : mercredi 15 mai 2002 19:18
> À : 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
>