5 ms·

So if one of those patents also invalidates H264 they will presumably quickly invite the submitter to join the party? It would be ironic if news of the patent

So if one of those patents also invalidates H264 they will presumably quickly invite the submitter to join the party? It would be ironic if news of the patent leaked to Google who swooped in and bought them! They also have to be a little careful reading them - if they discover a patent that H264 infringes on and don't admit that in court when chasing down somebody else they are likely to have their ass handed to them on a plate - judges really don't like that.

ghshephard 16y ago
I think you're failing to understand the purpose of a patent pool here. MPEG-LA is an organization that licenses a broad-pool of patents to companies interested in licensing them. They actually have a number of pools, though the H.264/AVC one is probably the most well known. MPEG-LA in turn, represents about 30 licensor companies that all have patents (on the order of thousands) in this H.264/AVC pool. The money they get from licensees (on the order of a 1,000 or so) is then split among the licensors (minus an administration fee by MPEG-LA, naturally). MPEG-LA _explicitly_ makes it clear that they are not providing any assurance (in fact, they make it clear, it's impossible to do so) that all of the essential patents to distribute a AVC/H.264 product are included in the pool. So - MPEG-LA can't "Infringe" on a patent with H.264, as they don't distribute any H.264 products. All they do is license several thousands patents from 30 licensor companies to approximately 1,000 licensees. They have no obligation to communicate, evaluate, or otherwise publicize whether a patent submitted to this potential VP8 pool would be useful to their H.264 licensees. Now - the question then comes out, "How is it that the H264 LIcensors think they have _any_ protection against some patent holding company out there? What prevents someone with a critical H.264 patent from going after Microsoft, or Apple and asking for $500Million claim?" Apparently, this is where the concept of estoppel by laches comes into play. MPEG-LA went out of it's way to (A) Put out a call for any patents essential to H.264, and (B) Published, very openly, the names of every licensor. Anyone with a patent that is essential to H.264 has had every opportunity to come forth with one - it's been very, very, very public who they could contact. At a certain point, you can't delay your claims, or you lose some of your standing to claim them. This doesn't guarantee that the licensors won't face a lawsuit some time in the future, but it certainly tips the legal scales somewhat in their favor, and likely reduces the potential for a charge of willful infringement and the damages that come along with such. One of the purposes of Patent Pools, is to create this "certainty" around the IP strength of a manufacturer. If MPEG-LA is able to establish a patent pool around VP8, and, after a few years, products come out, and nobody gets sued by a submarine patent out there, we'll likely see the codec become more popular, resulting in more licensors, and, eventually, VP8 could become as popular as H.264. Regardless - I don't see a way for anyone to release a "Patent Free codec" in the Video world for at least another 20 years (2028 is when the last of the MPEG-LA patents expire).
- kjhghjkjh 16y ago
  So the MPEG-LA isn't just a cartel of large electronics and software companies getting together to lock any upstarts (like Google) out of the market and protect their margins?
  - ghshephard 16y ago
    Correct - Most of the MPEG-LA Licensors are also licensees. Their primary business line is not suing other companies, but, rather, building and selling products. The patent pools accomplish two things. (1) It eliminates a "Patent Thicket" - which is a scenario where a potential licensor would have to negotiate with a bunch of different companies, and (2) creates _some_ (but not perfect) certainty that they won't be sued for violating patents by distributing a product. With regards to "locking out any upstarts" - Google is _already_ a licensee of H.264 - and, regardless, the license fees they would pay are equal to what apple, or microsoft pay - these companies hit their royalty cap almost instantly, and it's a small number compared to the amount of product they distribute (on the order of $5mm) Their has been much, much Internet debate on why Google dropped support for H.264, but, if the VP8 Codec takes off, and MPEG-LA is able to put together a patent pool, I fully expect Microsoft and Apple to support it as a first class codec in their products. I personally don't know what Google was trying to accomplish - go eyeball the list of essential patents for AVC/H.264 [1] and tell me whether you think any modern codec doesn't infringe a few hundred of them. I've worked for several of these large companies - and their mindset typically isn't that of a "Patent Troll" - they are just trying to get reasonable license fees for the IP that other companies are distributing that use those patents, and, most importantly, avoid being sued by Trolls and other low-lifes that are trying to leech $$$ from companies that are actually creating value. (Though, our General Counsel has used words somewhat more derogatory than "leech" and "low-lifes" when referring to patent trolls) [1] http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/avcCrossRefChart.pdf http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/avcCrossRe...

ghshephard 16y ago

I think you're failing to understand the purpose of a patent pool here. MPEG-LA is an organization that licenses a broad-pool of patents to companies interested in licensing them. They actually have a number of pools, though the H.264/AVC one is probably the most well known. MPEG-LA in turn, represents about 30 licensor companies that all have patents (on the order of thousands) in this H.264/AVC pool. The money they get from licensees (on the order of a 1,000 or so) is then split among the licensors (minus an administration fee by MPEG-LA, naturally). MPEG-LA _explicitly_ makes it clear that they are not providing any assurance (in fact, they make it clear, it's impossible to do so) that all of the essential patents to distribute a AVC/H.264 product are included in the pool. So - MPEG-LA can't "Infringe" on a patent with H.264, as they don't distribute any H.264 products. All they do is license several thousands patents from 30 licensor companies to approximately 1,000 licensees. They have no obligation to communicate, evaluate, or otherwise publicize whether a patent submitted to this potential VP8 pool would be useful to their H.264 licensees. Now - the question then comes out, "How is it that the H264 LIcensors think they have _any_ protection against some patent holding company out there? What prevents someone with a critical H.264 patent from going after Microsoft, or Apple and asking for $500Million claim?" Apparently, this is where the concept of estoppel by laches comes into play. MPEG-LA went out of it's way to (A) Put out a call for any patents essential to H.264, and (B) Published, very openly, the names of every licensor. Anyone with a patent that is essential to H.264 has had every opportunity to come forth with one - it's been very, very, very public who they could contact. At a certain point, you can't delay your claims, or you lose some of your standing to claim them. This doesn't guarantee that the licensors won't face a lawsuit some time in the future, but it certainly tips the legal scales somewhat in their favor, and likely reduces the potential for a charge of willful infringement and the damages that come along with such. One of the purposes of Patent Pools, is to create this "certainty" around the IP strength of a manufacturer. If MPEG-LA is able to establish a patent pool around VP8, and, after a few years, products come out, and nobody gets sued by a submarine patent out there, we'll likely see the codec become more popular, resulting in more licensors, and, eventually, VP8 could become as popular as H.264. Regardless - I don't see a way for anyone to release a "Patent Free codec" in the Video world for at least another 20 years (2028 is when the last of the MPEG-LA patents expire).

kjhghjkjh 16y ago
So the MPEG-LA isn't just a cartel of large electronics and software companies getting together to lock any upstarts (like Google) out of the market and protect their margins?
- ghshephard 16y ago
  Correct - Most of the MPEG-LA Licensors are also licensees. Their primary business line is not suing other companies, but, rather, building and selling products. The patent pools accomplish two things. (1) It eliminates a "Patent Thicket" - which is a scenario where a potential licensor would have to negotiate with a bunch of different companies, and (2) creates _some_ (but not perfect) certainty that they won't be sued for violating patents by distributing a product. With regards to "locking out any upstarts" - Google is _already_ a licensee of H.264 - and, regardless, the license fees they would pay are equal to what apple, or microsoft pay - these companies hit their royalty cap almost instantly, and it's a small number compared to the amount of product they distribute (on the order of $5mm) Their has been much, much Internet debate on why Google dropped support for H.264, but, if the VP8 Codec takes off, and MPEG-LA is able to put together a patent pool, I fully expect Microsoft and Apple to support it as a first class codec in their products. I personally don't know what Google was trying to accomplish - go eyeball the list of essential patents for AVC/H.264 [1] and tell me whether you think any modern codec doesn't infringe a few hundred of them. I've worked for several of these large companies - and their mindset typically isn't that of a "Patent Troll" - they are just trying to get reasonable license fees for the IP that other companies are distributing that use those patents, and, most importantly, avoid being sued by Trolls and other low-lifes that are trying to leech $$$ from companies that are actually creating value. (Though, our General Counsel has used words somewhat more derogatory than "leech" and "low-lifes" when referring to patent trolls) [1] http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/avcCrossRefChart.pdf http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/avcCrossRe...