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

[Rob Koenen]

> Maybe the best way to handle the structured audio case is 
> that an existing patent pool extends its license to 
> structured audio. 

If there are no patents (known) on SAM that's not only raising 
huge anti-trust issues, it's plain nonsensical - how would you 
extend a patent pool with non-existent or unknown patents?
If there *are* patents on SA (which we will try and find out)
then things would be different. But even then a company like 
Soundball will rightly ask "why do I need to license (e.g.) 
MPEG-4 AAC patents if I only want to implement SA?" 
> 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), 

Please read the resolutions of the last M4IF meeting - IF there 
are patents reported, that's *exactly* what this is about.
(http://www.m4if.org/public/documents/vault/m4-out-20016.php)
Best,
Rob