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

[Eric Scheirer]

> 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.

Well then, this is really what it's all about, isn't
it?  Let's pretend that patent holders for other parts
of MPEG-4 actually hold patents on patent-free parts
as well, and pay them royalties, because it makes us
feel more "peacefully" that way.
Let me say again: Structured Audio and AudioBIFS
require no licenses from anyone in order to implement.
I am an expert in this field that has studied the
patent terrain extensively and can provide citations
to appropriate patent-free prior art upon request.
If anyone disagrees, please cite specifically which
patents owned by which companies require licenses, or
otherwise stop creating noise and trying to confuse
the situation.
With all appropriate respect,
 -- Eric
----
Eric D. Scheirer, Ph.D.
edsmedia   alum.mit.edu
+1 617 666 8905
http://sound.media.mit.edu/~eds
----- Original Message -----
From: "AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/REN" <olivier.avaro   rd.francetelecom.com>
To: "Rob Koenen" <rkoenen   intertrust.com>; "Eric Scheirer"
<edsmedia   alum.mit.edu>; "M4IF Discussion List (E-mail)"
<discuss   lists.m4if.org>
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2024 3:06 PM
Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] Results M4IF Fairfax Meeting
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
>