[M4IF News] RE: [OpenDTV] MPEG-4 Licensing analysis

Fri Feb 1 10:20:59 EST 2002

Craig, all, (copying to the M4IF News list)
I very much welcome that fact that FINALLY there is an announcement 
that some part  of MPEG-4 will be licensable, even though it is only 
visual and only  some profiles. 
More Visual Profiles are coming, and AUdio and Systems *should* too.
IP in video coding is a reality that we have to live with. 
H.26L = JVT = MPEG-4 part 10 is not going to change that reality, although
the attempts to have a royalty-free baseline may be successful, and this
would help adoption of the standard.
I have already heard many comments on the licensing scheme. They range from
	"Fine, it's out now, it's finaly clear and I can live with the
terms" 
to
	"This will kill MPEG-4"
So far, more people are concerned than happy. This worries me greatly.
I would really like to hear from service providers (and other parties that 
are supposed to pay the use fee) to understand what they think. 
It would be good if MPEGLA could announce some deals or at least MoU's 
with people that are happy to play under these terms. This would mean the 
licensors have tested and proven the market reality of their terms.
But before that, I think two things are most needed now:
* More (much more) clarification on how this will exactly play out. Many 
  comments I have seen may be right or wrong, depending on what the exact
  scheme looks like.
* An open debate on whether this is what the market needs.
  Given the one year grace period, we have some time (but I do note that 
  the grace period only applies to those that express an intention to 
  sign up.)
To stimulate these discussions, the MPEG-4 Industry Forum has created a new
discussion list for non-technical discussions about MPEG-4 and everything
that surrounds its uptake: discuss   lists.m4if.org 
subscribe at http://www.m4if.org/public/publiclistreg.html 
I sincerely hope - and have some reasons to believe - that the licensors
are open to input from industry. This is not just expectation, it is
pure necessity. And the case of MPEG-2 has shown this to work to some
extent: rates were lowered because of market realities. 
MPEG-4 licensing will need to fit with market reality too. If and when it 
turns out that nobody will use MPEG-4 because licensing is deemed 
unreasonable, then everybody loses, including the licensors. They will 
lose more than just IP income. They wil also lose their share in the then 
non-existent MPEG-4 product market. 
Please note that MPEGLA is a facilitator that does not unilaterally decide 
on terms. If you feel like blaming someone, blame the licensors, not 
just their administrative body. The licensors are in the Press Release. 
Interestingly, there are only 18 names in the release, while it was 
previously announced that there were 19 holders of essential patents 
taking part in the discussions. One must have dropped out. (I do not 
know why and I never saw the original list of IP holders).
We will unleash the discsussions on the M4IF discussion list coming 
Monday, to allow everybody to subscribe first. Subscriptions are
pouring in as I write. 
I hope the licensors and their representatives will take active part in 
these discussions.
Let's understand, and let's discuss.
Best, 
Rob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig Birkmaier [mailto:craig   pcube.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2024 7:07
> To: OpenDTV Mail List
> Subject: [OpenDTV] MPEG-4 Licensing analysis
> 
> 
> Sender: <openDTV   topica.com>
> 
> The MPEG Licensing authority has done it again.
> 
> As indicated in the MPEG-LA press release and the EETime reaction 
> story that I am posting along with this message, it appears that 
> MPEG-LA has come up with another unworkable licensing scheme; one 
> that is likely to prevent MPEG-4 from becoming a viable standard in a 
> very competitive marketplace.
> 
> The $0.25 licensing fee for a decoder or an encoder appear quite 
> fair, when viewed in the context of previous licensing terms for 
> MPEG-2 decoders and encoders. But the marketplace reality is that 
> most competitors charge NOTHING for decoders.
> 
> What is far more important here is that this license is ONLY for 
> MPEG-4 visual, and the simple profile. In essence, this is just a low 
> bit rate streaming audio/video codec. It does not cover any of the 
> intellectual property in MPEG-4 that relates to all of the advanced 
> object based composition capabilities. In other words, it's just the 
> tip of the iceberg. What's more, the codec that is covered by this 
> license has been surpassed by a variety of other technologies, and 
> MPEG has begun work with the ITU to integrate the work done on the 
> 26L video codec  into MPEG-4.
> 
> The ITU has a far different view of licensing than ISO and MPEG. 
> Based on my discussion with people working on 26L, the intent is to 
> offer this codec on a royalty free basis, although it may be 
> pre-mature to assume that this will actually happen.
> 
> Irrespective of the licensing fees for the MPEG-4 visual intellectual 
> property, the terms that MPEG-LA has established, charging usage fees 
> for commercial applications including streaming and packaged media 
> are unjustified and unworkable. No content creator or distributor is 
> going to use this technology with such an onerous requirement. To be 
> fair, there are usage fees for MPEG-2 on packaged media; it is 
> relatively easy for disc duplicators to collect these fees as a 
> component of the per disc charge.
> 
> But tracking actual usage of streaming content adds a layer of 
> complexity for any commercial web site operator. Given the reality 
> that there are royalty free options that provide equal or better 
> quality, it is highly unlikely that many sites will elect to use 
> MPEG-4 video.
> 
> Yesterday, Rob Koenan offered a more optimistic view of the 
> situation, suggesting that this will stimulate debate in the 
> industry. I hope Rob will take the opportunity to reply to these 
> comments and to keep us posted about any new development.
> 
> Frankly, I can;t say I am surprised...
> 
> -- 
> Regards
> Craig Birkmaier
> Pcube Labs
> 
> ==^================================================================
> This email was sent to: rkoenen   intertrust.com
> 
> EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bz8QYL.bAl7Rl
> Or send an email to: OpenDTV-unsubscribe   topica.com
> 
> T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
> http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
> ==^================================================================
>