[M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4
Rob Koenen
rkoenen intertrust.com
Tue Mar 5 16:06:55 EST 2002
Let me correct a potantial misunderstanding that arose in the
discussio nbetween Craig and Olivier, and then get the discussion
on the right track again (yes, at the risk of reviving it :-)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig Birkmaier [mailto:craig pcube.com]
> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2024 8:29
> At 5:27 PM +0100 2/22/02, AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/REN wrote:
> > > And there is one simple way to proceed if you are serious about a
> >> royalty free standard:
> >> Impose a requirement that any essential IP be offered on a royalty
> >> free basis. Unfortunately I don't know if this is
> possible under ISO
> > > or ITU rules.
> >
> >Unfortunatly I don't think it is.
>
> Perhaps you are mistaken about this.
>
> Please direct your attention to:
>
> ToR Joint Video Team.doc
[rest of mail below for those who lost track]
Olivier is an MPEG Chair and well aware of what is happening in MPEG.
He is definitely NOT mistaken. There is huge difference between a
(commendable) voluntary process that may lead to an RF baseline and
the suggested *requirement* that you seek to *impose*.
This said, I want to stop the discussion on
* What should be done with future coding schemes
* How should ISO really work
* Why patent law would or would not be fair/reasonalbe/good/bad
... and concentrate on the real question at hand that will now
determine success or failure of MPEG-4:
Are the currently porposed licensing terms Reasonable and do they
support widespread adoption of the MPEG-4 Standard?
Rob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig Birkmaier [mailto:craig pcube.com]
> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2024 8:29
> To: discuss lists.m4if.org
> Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] hourly usage fee for MPEG4
>
>
> At 5:27 PM +0100 2/22/02, AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/REN wrote:
> > > And there is one simple way to proceed if you are serious about a
> >> royalty free standard:
> >> Impose a requirement that any essential IP be offered on a royalty
> >> free basis. Unfortunately I don't know if this is
> possible under ISO
> > > or ITU rules.
> >
> >Unfortunatly I don't think it is.
>
> Perhaps you are mistaken about this.
>
> Please direct your attention to:
>
> ToR Joint Video Team.doc
>
> Terms of Reference for a Joint Project between
> ITU-T Q.6/SG16 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG11
> for the Development of new Video Coding
> Recommendation and International Standard
>
> Sorry, but I do not know the MPEG document number or the server
> location(s) where it can be found.
>
>
> In particular look at table 2 within the Patent Disclosure
> Form in Annex 3:
>
>
> >Disclosure information - Submitting Organization/Person
> (choose one box)
> >
> > 2.0 The submitter is not aware of having any granted,
> >pending, or planned patents associated with the technical content of
> >the Recommendation | Standard or Contribution.
> >
> >or,
> >
> >The submitter (Patent Holder) has granted, pending, or planned
> >patents associated with the technical content of the Recommendation
> >| Standard or Contribution. In which case,
> >
> > 2.1 The Patent Holder is prepared to grant - on the basis of
> >reciprocity for the above Recommendation | Standard - a free license
> >to an unrestricted number of applicants on a worldwide,
> >non-discriminatory basis to manufacture, use and/or sell
> >implementations of the above Recommendation | Standard.
> >
> > 2.2. The Patent Holder is prepared to grant - on the basis of
> >reciprocity for the above Recommendation | Standard - a license to
> >an unrestricted number of applicants on a worldwide,
> >non-discriminatory basis and on reasonable terms and conditions to
> >manufacture, use and/ or sell implementations of the above
> >Recommendation | Standard.
> >
> > Such negotiations are left to the parties concerned and are
> >performed outside the ITU | ISO/IEC.
> >
> > 2.2.1 The same as box 2.2 above, but in addition the Patent
> >Holder is prepared to grant a "royalty-free" license to anyone on
> >condition that all other patent holders do the same.
> >
> > 2.3. The Patent Holder is unwilling to grant licenses
> >according to the provisions of either 2.1, 2.2, or 2.2.1 above. In
> >this case, the following information must be provided as part of
> >this declaration:
> >- patent registration/application number;
> >- an indication of which portions of the Recommendation | Standard
> >are affected.
> >- a description of the patent claims covering the
> Recommendation | Standard.
>
>
> Apparently, you have all the information needed to determine the
> contributors intent with respect to any patents required for
> implementation of the 26L standard. What's more, the mechanism is
> clearly in place to allow participants to contribute their IPR on a
> royalty free basis, by checking box 2.1 or 2.1.1 (provisional on all
> patent holders doing the same).
>
> I am curious Olivier. You wrote:
>
> >We leave in a world where ownership of intellectual creation is
> >recognized as a right (and in your country even more than
> others so you
> >should be aware of that). Do you ask as well for content
> companies to give
> >their content free ? No, there is no still free lunch in
> this world. That's
> >life (but we can still quote "Imagine" as Leonardo did in
> the last MPEG
> >plenary ;-)
>
> I ask for a level playing field, and for the opportunity for all
> interested parties to share in the success of a communal effort to
> provide consumers with the many benefits of standardization.
>
> I do not ask for free content, but if it is provided freely in the
> context of one business model I do not accept restrictions on my
> rights under a different set of circumstances: The article by
> Lawrence Lessig that I posted earlier contains a very clear
> description of what I am talking about:
>
> >We live in a world with "free" content, and this freedom is not an
> >imperfection. We listen to the radio without paying for the songs we
> >hear; we hear friends humming tunes that they have not licensed. We
> >refer to plots in movies to tell jokes without the permission of the
> >director. We read books to our children borrowed from a library
> >without any payment for performance rights to the original copyright
> >holder. The fact that content at any particular time is free tells
> >us nothing about whether using that content is "theft." Similarly,
> >an argument for increasing control by content owners needs more than
> >"they didn't pay for this use" to back up the argument.
>
> It is hypocrisy for the music industry to use the "free" distribution
> and sharing of music via radio broadcasting to promote the sales of
> their products, then deny those who seek to build a similar business
> on the Internet the right to license their products on a
> non-discriminatory basis.
>
> And it is hypocrisy for patent holders to create licensing terms for
> derivative products that disadvantage those derivatives relative to
> other products that incorporate the same IPR.
>
> Leonardo has asked the participants in MPEG to "Imagine" what they
> could do by following a different path to a common goal - the
> successful proliferation of the products of your efforts.
>
> This makes me wonder if he played John Lennon's song at the plenary,
> and if so, whether he paid the requisite usage fee?
>
> --
> Regards
> Craig Birkmaier
> Pcube Labs
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss lists.m4if.org
> http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
More information about the Discuss
mailing list