The provided links ( here's the second one, googlefied: http://docs.google.com/gview?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.itscj.ipsj.or.jp%2Fsc29%2Fopen%2F29view%2F29n118201.

The provided links ( here's the second one, googlefied: http://docs.google.com/gview?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.itscj.ipsj.or.jp%2Fsc29%2Fopen%2F29view%2F29n118201.doc http://docs.google.com/gview?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.itscj.ipsj... ) provide nothing further than what's cited. From that second link: 14.9.2 The Requirements subgroup recommends approval of the following contribution to the press release: MPEG has been producing standards that provide industry with the best video compression technologies. In recognition of the growing importance that the Internet plays in the generation and consumption of video content, MPEG intends to develop a new video compression standard in line with the expected usage models of the Internet. The new standard is intended to achieve substantially better compression performance than that offered by MPEG-2 and possibly comparable to that offered by the AVC Baseline Profile. MPEG will issue a call for proposals on video compression technology at the end of its upcoming meeting in March 2011 that is expected to lead to a standard falling under ISO/IEC "Type-1 licensing", i.e. intended to be "royalty free". I did a bit of looking, but could not quickly identify the terms of this licensing. For one, I'm immediately questioning whether it's entirely royalty-free or only for "non-commercial use". Isn't that one of the problems with encoding that is used in current generation technologies? For example, you're fine shooting personal video, but using it in any commercial context ostensible requires -- or will require after a grace period -- a license in addition to the one that comes with the equipment. Or am I confusing this situation with a different context?