MPEG Industry Forum

MPEGIF does not license patents. Neither does MPEGIF bear any responsibility for licensing patents.

MPEGIF initiates discussions leading to the potential establishment of patent pools outside of MPEGIF, that should grant a license to an unlimited number of applicants throughout the world under reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of any unfair competition. MPEGIF only initiates these discussions; the formation of joint licensing schemes and licensing of MPEG technology will be run by patent owners, independently from MPEGIF. Licensing and membership of MPEGIF are, by nature, independent. MPEGIF does not require anything of its members in terms of licensing their patents, and MPEGIF's discussions should result in initiatives outside MPEGIF that are equally open to members and non-members.

MPEG Patents - A Brief Explanation Of Who Is Responsible (And Who Is Not!)

There are quite a few misunderstandings about the role of the different organizations involved in getting MPEG deployed, notably when patent licenses are concerned. Below is a short clarification of the role of some of the main players.

There is ISO/IEC MPEG. This is the group that makes MPEG standards. MPEG does not (cannot, under ISO rules) deal with patents and licensing. It asks of companies that propose technologies that get adopted into the standard to sign a statement that they will license their patents on Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory Terms (also called RAND terms).

There is the MPEG Industry Forum, MPEGIF. MPEGIF has in its statutes that it shall not license patents or determine licensing fees. It can discuss issues pertaining to licensing though, some of which hopefully lead to patent pools that should grant a license to an unlimited number of applicants throughout the world under reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of any unfair competition. MPEGIF has acted as a catalyst, in the very literal sense, of getting patent pools going, strictly outside of MPEGIF. MPEGIF encourages more patent pools to be created, if possible even competing ones. (Competition is good, also in licensing). By the way, nobody is forced to do business with the pool; one can also go straight to all the individual licensors (e.g., 20+ in MPEG-4 Visual). It's a bit cumbersome though, and one might well end up paying more in the end.

MPEGIF does not receive anything of the collected royalties, nor does it want to. MPEGIF has among its members licensors, licensees and entities that are neither of those. Collectively, the members have an interest in fair and reasonable licensing, because the standard will fail without it.

Licensing and membership of MPEGIF are, by nature and statute, independent. MPEGIF does not require anything of its members in terms of licensing their patents, and MPEGIF's discussions that address licensing are always aimed at achieving initiatives outside MPEGIF that are equally open to members and non-members. MPEGIF's initiatives seek to promote competition and benefit the user. In keeping with antitrust laws, MPEGIF allows opinions to be expressed, but does not seek consensus or agreement on acceptable royalties.

There are the 'patent pools' (joint licensing schemes) and their administrators. MPEG LA is one example, licensing portfolios of patents essential to MPEG-2 Video, MPEG-2 Systems, MPEG-4 Visual and MPEG-4 Systems. Via Licensing Corporation, an independent subsidiary of Dolby Laboratories, licenses patents essential to MPEG-2 AAC, and MPEG-4 Audio including AAC and High Efficiency AAC. Thomson licenses patents essential to MP3 (MPEG-1 Layer III Audio). Patent holders determine the fees; Licensing Agents collect royalties on behalf of the patent owners and distribute the proceeds. There are probably other licensing agents and/or companies, not mentioned here, licensing patents essential to an MPEG standard. This description does not seek to give an exhaustive list of licensors of patents essential to MPEG standards.

It must be noted that these joint licensing schemes are not carried out on behalf of ISO, MPEG or MPEGIF, nor are they, or do they need to be, officially 'blessed' by any organization (including ISO, MPEG, MPEGIF). In other words, there is no 'authority' involved in licensing, it is a matter of private companies working together to offer convenience to the market. In some instances, the licensing administrator seeks some reassurance from governments to make sure that no anti-trust liability exists. For example, in the case of MPEG-2, MPEG LA obtained a 'comfort letter' from the US Department of Justice, and a similar letter was issued by the European authorities.

Licensing - General Information

Free Patents Online [Free Patents Online, 16 Jan 07]

Streamcrest Associates' license calculator [Streamcrest Associates, 11 Dec 03]

Subscribe to the Discuss List and join discussions on MPEG-4 licensing and other non-technical issues [M4IF, 03]

Informal Transcript of Q&A; with Larry Horn of MPEG LA [M4IF, 19 July 02]

An overview of Visual and Audio Licensing [Streamcrest, July 02]

Resolutions of the Special Meeting on Licensing [M4IF, 03 May 02]

Summary of the MPEG-4 Licensing Situation [M4IF President, 03 May 02]

Study on licensing models for software/downloadable MPEG-4 technology Version 1.0 [M4IF, Feb 01]

Slides from the workshop on patent Licensing in downloadable software MPEG-4 Technology [M4IF, 28 June 00]