4 ms·

But the group says it isn't acting to kill a competitor. It said it's simply offering a service for patent holders and is agnostic about which video format prev

by mustpax 16y ago

But the group says it isn't acting to kill a competitor. It said it's simply offering a service for patent holders and is agnostic about which video format prevails. "We are effectively a convenience store" for licensing patents, said Larry Horn, MPEG LA's chief executive. "We have no dog in that fight." So, MPEG LA has no interest in extracting maximum possible amount of royalties for its patent holders?

imbriaco 16y ago
If you keep reading, it's clear that MPEG-LA believes it has patents in the portfolio that cover VP8. If they expect to extract licensing revenue from those patents it's altogether possible that they don't care which format ultimately wins.
- mustpax 16y ago
  Well, that claim is completely disingenuous. In reality MPEG-LA oversees licensing for a set of known codecs, the most prominent being H.264. When a somewhat-viable competitor comes to town they just claim they own the competitor and therefore don't even need to compete. Behind the "we're impartial" facade what they're really saying is, "you're going to have to pay us anyway, so why not just use H.264 instead?" (By the way, I voted you up, I think you summarize their position better than I did.)
- marshray 16y ago
  But probably they aren't really 100% sure their patents will hold up against the scale of legal challenge that could be brought down by Google. Of course, they have 1700 of them so they could keep the legal trouble going indefinitely. It would certainly be easier for them if the Google and the world continued to just cut them checks for ancient technology. But it will never be to their advantage to admit the extent to which they are bluffing and they probably don't even know themselves. Video has been digitized and compressed for how many decades now? Weren't patents supposed to expire at some point?
- iujyhfgtrtgyhju 16y ago
  The MPEG-LA doesn't charge royalties to it's members. The members also all hold patents - it's just an agreement not to sue each other. They do charge royalties to anyone not in the association - those royalties can of course be >100%. In the old days we used to call this a cartel - but that's illegal.
  - Anechoic 16y ago
    The MPEG-LA doesn't charge royalties to it's members Is that true? I though members had to pay royalties even if they had a patent in the pool.
    - iujyhfgtrtgyhju 16y ago
      It's a complex and secret process - but MSFT and Apple are not paying $10 for each copy of windows/iOS that includes an H264 player!
      - kenjackson 16y ago
        There's a royalty cap. I believe MSFT is paying the maximum royalty cap for H264. And Apple only has one patent in the patent pool of 1000+ patents.
      - tomsaffell 16y ago
        $10? If I understand the license[1] right - it's more like $0.10 to $0.20. [1] - http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/AVC_TermsSummary.pdf http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/AVC_TermsS...
    - nullc 16y ago
      This isn't the case. See the HP and MPEG-LA testimony before the FTC. The pool agreement isn't exclusive. The members are free to license their patents through other venues, including cross licensing. In fact, one of the points MPEG-LA made in their initial review letter with the DOJ is that he pool would not be used to force anyone to pay for a license to a patent which they were already licensed for some other means. So a pool member only has to pay royalties iff they've been unable to achieve complete cross-licensing with the other pool members.
- hristov 16y ago
  That is not clear from the article. Their representatives said that they believe that there are patents that cover vp8, but they never said they control those patents or which patents those are. At another place the article says that mpeg-la is asking people to submit patents that cover vp8 in order to form another patent pool. So it seems that they may not have the patents that cover vp8 but want other companies to give them to them.
- ZeroGravitas 16y ago
  Actually Mr Horn, who is a lawyer, is very careful never to say that. He does regularly get quoted as saying things are covered by patents, but never says who they belong to. I'm astonished that he might actually be talking about Google's own patents, knowing that he'll be quoted by the press in a way that turns a true, but pointless statement into FUD. Since most of his quotes sound like a Dickensian bad guy I think he might just be doing this. I mean who talks like this: "In view of the marketplace uncertainties regarding patent licensing needs for such technologies, there have been expressions of interest from the market urging us to facilitate formation of licenses that would address the market's need for a convenient one-stop marketplace alternative to negotiating separate licenses with individual patent holders in accessing essential patent rights for VP8 as well as other codecs, and we are looking into the prospects of doing so."

by mustpax 16y ago

imbriaco 16y ago

If you keep reading, it's clear that MPEG-LA believes it has patents in the portfolio that cover VP8. If they expect to extract licensing revenue from those patents it's altogether possible that they don't care which format ultimately wins.

mustpax 16y ago
Well, that claim is completely disingenuous. In reality MPEG-LA oversees licensing for a set of known codecs, the most prominent being H.264. When a somewhat-viable competitor comes to town they just claim they own the competitor and therefore don't even need to compete. Behind the "we're impartial" facade what they're really saying is, "you're going to have to pay us anyway, so why not just use H.264 instead?" (By the way, I voted you up, I think you summarize their position better than I did.)
marshray 16y ago
But probably they aren't really 100% sure their patents will hold up against the scale of legal challenge that could be brought down by Google. Of course, they have 1700 of them so they could keep the legal trouble going indefinitely. It would certainly be easier for them if the Google and the world continued to just cut them checks for ancient technology. But it will never be to their advantage to admit the extent to which they are bluffing and they probably don't even know themselves. Video has been digitized and compressed for how many decades now? Weren't patents supposed to expire at some point?
iujyhfgtrtgyhju 16y ago
The MPEG-LA doesn't charge royalties to it's members. The members also all hold patents - it's just an agreement not to sue each other. They do charge royalties to anyone not in the association - those royalties can of course be >100%. In the old days we used to call this a cartel - but that's illegal.
- Anechoic 16y ago
  The MPEG-LA doesn't charge royalties to it's members Is that true? I though members had to pay royalties even if they had a patent in the pool.
  - iujyhfgtrtgyhju 16y ago
    It's a complex and secret process - but MSFT and Apple are not paying $10 for each copy of windows/iOS that includes an H264 player!
    - kenjackson 16y ago
      There's a royalty cap. I believe MSFT is paying the maximum royalty cap for H264. And Apple only has one patent in the patent pool of 1000+ patents.
    - tomsaffell 16y ago
      $10? If I understand the license[1] right - it's more like $0.10 to $0.20. [1] - http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/AVC_TermsSummary.pdf http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/AVC_TermsS...
  - nullc 16y ago
    This isn't the case. See the HP and MPEG-LA testimony before the FTC. The pool agreement isn't exclusive. The members are free to license their patents through other venues, including cross licensing. In fact, one of the points MPEG-LA made in their initial review letter with the DOJ is that he pool would not be used to force anyone to pay for a license to a patent which they were already licensed for some other means. So a pool member only has to pay royalties iff they've been unable to achieve complete cross-licensing with the other pool members.
hristov 16y ago
That is not clear from the article. Their representatives said that they believe that there are patents that cover vp8, but they never said they control those patents or which patents those are. At another place the article says that mpeg-la is asking people to submit patents that cover vp8 in order to form another patent pool. So it seems that they may not have the patents that cover vp8 but want other companies to give them to them.
ZeroGravitas 16y ago
Actually Mr Horn, who is a lawyer, is very careful never to say that. He does regularly get quoted as saying things are covered by patents, but never says who they belong to. I'm astonished that he might actually be talking about Google's own patents, knowing that he'll be quoted by the press in a way that turns a true, but pointless statement into FUD. Since most of his quotes sound like a Dickensian bad guy I think he might just be doing this. I mean who talks like this: "In view of the marketplace uncertainties regarding patent licensing needs for such technologies, there have been expressions of interest from the market urging us to facilitate formation of licenses that would address the market's need for a convenient one-stop marketplace alternative to negotiating separate licenses with individual patent holders in accessing essential patent rights for VP8 as well as other codecs, and we are looking into the prospects of doing so."