3 ms·
MPEG-LA cannot be a patent troll let alone a known one, because it's a loose organization of companies that agree on a standard to prevent fragmentation of vide
by irons 16y ago
MPEG-LA cannot be a patent troll let alone a known one, because it's a loose organization of companies that agree on a standard to prevent fragmentation of video and let people deal with one entity instead of a thousand.
Also, the licensing terms are fixed at a maximum 10% rise per five-year renewal. Given the lifespan of patents, that's a low ceiling.
- jokermatt999 16y agoAlso, the licensing terms are fixed at a maximum 10% rise per five-year renewal. Given the lifespan of patents, that's a low ceiling. This is the first I've heard of this. Since one of the main concerns I've heard is that MPEG-LA could raise fees to unacceptable levels, do you mind providing a source for this? I'm still less comfortable with H264 being the standard rather than WebM, but this makes me less worried. (Anti-FUD?)
- jammur 16y agoHe's probably referring to the last paragraph of this: http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/AVC_TermsSummary.pdf http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/AVC_TermsS...
- alanfalcon 16y agoConsidering how the large corporations easily reach the annual cap (currently $6.5 Million per year until at least 2015), the footnote that the 10% maximum increase in royalties does not apply to the cap is a bit disconcerting.
- ZeroGravitas 16y agoAh, that explains how the cap has managed to go from $5 to $6.5 million (a 30% rise) since the last time I looked at it, which certainly wasn't 15 years ago.