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

[Haidamus, Ramzi]

I doubt that an open conversation on this reflector will answer your
questions as to whether someone "out there" has a patent on SA.  The best
you can do is have an open call for patent evaluation for SA, very similarly
to what we did for the three audio profiles.  And even then, as with all
patent pools, there will be no guarantees that all the patent owners have
come forward since some companies have a policy against joining patent pools
while others prefer to wait for the "success" of the standard before
joining.
Ramzi
-----Original Message-----
From: AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/REN
[mailto:olivier.avaro   rd.francetelecom.com]
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2024 11:36 PM
To: Rob Koenen; Eric Scheirer; M4IF Discussion List (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] Results M4IF Fairfax Meeting
Dear Rob, all,
> > 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?

Please read my mail :-)
1- If someone believes there is no patent, he can take the risk to implement
SA even if SA is in the scope of a patent pool. Some companies are e.g.
using part of MPEG-2 without paying anything to MPEG-LA because they believe
that the part of MPEG-2 they are using is patent free.
2- The "scope" of a patent pool is broader that the set of patents, e.g.,
it's MPEG-2 Visual at Prof. x. There are lot of technology in Prof. x not
covered by patents. Are you saying this is nonsensical and raise huge
anti-trust issues ? At least it has been working for the last couple of
years :-) All I am saying is that SA should be in the scope of an existing
patent pool. It will just make our life simpler.
> 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?" 
>
Again, they don't need to. You are never forced to do these things (well, in
some case where there are infringement indeed you can ;-)
> > 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)

Why should patent holder report patents ? I am not sure we are going to
prove anything if there are no answer. (Same for JVT BTW).But if people
feels that the risk is lower if nobody responds, this is fine with me.
cu,
O.
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss   lists.m4if.org
http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
--------------------
This message (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information intended for a specific individual and purpose. If you are not
the intended recipient, delete this message. If you are not the intended
recipient, disclosing, copying, distributing, or taking any action based on
this message is strictly prohibited.