[MPEGIF Discuss] News on AVC Licensing Terms

[Rob Koenen (MPEGIF)]

Ray,
While many will agree with the fact that there need to be free PC decoders
to end-users, one should not confuse patent licenses with technology
licenses, 
or (end-user) product pricing with license pricing. 
Windows Media doesn't come with free decoder licenses to implementers
either,
and while MPEG-4 part 2 has patent licenses on the decoder, many companies 
make available MPEG-4 decoders for free. Apple is just one of them, probably
the largest in terms of decoders deployed. As a matter of fact, for smaller 
technology suppliers there *is* a possibility to supply decoders free of 
license fees in MPEG-4. The decoder fee for MPEG-4 does not seem to be
what most people have issues with.
Best,
Rob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces lists.mpegif.org 
> [mailto:discuss-bounces lists.mpegif.org] On Behalf Of Ray Harris
> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2023 13:03
> To: discuss lists.mpegif.org
> Subject: RE: [MPEGIF Discuss] News on AVC Licensing Terms
> 
> 
> The patent holders are really putting a damper on the use of MPEG4.  We
> wanted to switch from Windows Media but there is no way we are willing
> to deal with this uncertainty and cost structure.\
> 
> The only way it will work is if there are free software decoders, free
> usage and a fee for encoders.  Placing a fee on decoders will 
> be too big
> of a barrier to ever allow adoption of a software/PC based player.
> 
> Ray Harris ray webcastgroup.com
> Direct Line 216-431-7777 X 202 
> Cell 216-410-1508
> Webcast Group, Inc. http://www.webcastgroup.com
> Join us every Wednesday at 2:00PM EST for a live NetPoint demo!
> NetPoint is the web seminar answer.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: discuss-bounces lists.mpegif.org [mailto:discuss-
> > bounces lists.mpegif.org] On Behalf Of Rob Koenen (MPEGIF)
> > Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2023 3:32 PM
> > To: 'Rosiles Gerardo-ra9355'; discuss lists.mpegif.org
> > Subject: RE: [MPEGIF Discuss] News on AVC Licensing Terms
> > 
> > Gerardo,
> > 
> > There is a general desire for there to be only one pool that covers
> all
> > essential patents. How that is going to be brought about is 
> unclear to
> me
> > at
> > the moment. One would hope that the licensors recognize the 
> importance
> of
> > easy access to essential patents; I've talked to many people over
> recent
> > days who mentioned they hoped there wouldn't be different pools with
> > potentially different structures and fees that add up.
> > 
> > NB - This list has been dormant for a while, but it is 
> still open for
> > these
> > types of discussions.
> > 
> > Rob
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: discuss-bounces lists.mpegif.org
> > > [mailto:discuss-bounces lists.mpegif.org] On Behalf Of
> > > Rosiles Gerardo-ra9355
> > > Sent: Monday, September 15, 2023 10:36
> > > To: 'discuss lists.mpegif.org'
> > > Subject: [MPEGIF Discuss] FW: [MPEGIF News] News on AVC
> > > Licensing Terms
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  Rob,
> > >
> > >   Are there going to be two license fees and/or licensing
> > >  models for H.264? Are MPEG-LA and Via working together or
> > >  competing against each other?
> > >
> > >  If there will be two entities requiring royalty payment,
> > >  doesn't this complicate the whole licensing process?
> > >
> > >  Thanks,
> > >
> > >  Gerardo
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss lists.mpegif.org
> > http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss lists.mpegif.org
> http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>