3 ms·
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.
by 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 agoIt'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 agoThere'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 agoThis 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.