Skapades ursprungligen av: Jürgen B:
Nu gäller det bara att Apple klurar ut den här skiten med MPEG4 licenserna...
Det ser illa ut,MPEG LA verkar vara tuffa förhandlare.. fick mejl från dom idag
"Thanks for sharing your views with us regarding the reported MPEG-4
Visual licensing terms and your interest in using the MPEG-4 Visual
Standard. I know this email may sound like a canned response, but since
you took the time to write to us and others who wrote us raised similar
concerns, we wanted to get back to you (and the others) to explain the
situation. We understand that you have strong feelings about the MPEG-4
Visual licensing terms based on what you´ve heard, and we welcome your
feedback. The license agreement is still in the process of being worked
out, your views are important to us, and they will be taken into
consideration. Similarly, I hope you will allow us this opportunity to
clarify a few things that may have been misunderstood and to explain
where this goes from here.
First, we would like to clarify the role of MPEG LA. MPEG LA´s business
is to make it possible for new technologies (like MPEG-4 Video) to enter
the marketplace by making the essential intellectual property rights
owned by many patent owners accessible to everyone on fair, reasonable,
nondiscriminatory terms under a single license. If there were no MPEG
LA, the essential patent rights that made the MPEG-4 Visual technology
possible would still have to be dealt with, but instead of having the
opportunity to deal with one company for a single license that includes
those rights, users´ only option would be to deal with each patent
holder individually. With MPEG LA, the marketplace is assured of ready
access to MPEG-4 Visual essential patents owned by 18 different
companies (soon there will be more, but our goal is to include as many
essential patents as possible in one license; therefore, royalty rates
will not increase during the term of the agreement even as new patent
owners and more patents are included). What you´ve seen is the first
step in that process.
We understand that the success of a licensing program relies on the
success of the underlying technology. Therefore, our goal, like yours,
is to promote the widest possible use of the MPEG-4 Visual standard, and
we are sensitive to the need to structure a reasonable license that is
consistent with marketplace conditions. To that end, we continue to
work with the patent owners to assure that the license is responsive.
Everything is in a state of constant review. If something isn´t right,
every effort is made to fix it. Because of MPEG LA´s role, you have the
opportunity to discuss your concerns with us, and we in turn can
communicate them to the patent owners. We note that there are many
different views to be considered, however, and that ultimately the
marketplace will decide. We note also that there may be many reasons
(having nothing to do with licensing terms) why someone may delay a
product introduction or choose among competing alternatives. And, it
would be a mistake to assume that any alternative is or will be free of
patent licensing obligations or without additional charges of its own.
Finally, we understand that you do not agree with the implementation of
a use fee. Given the nature of MPEG-4 Visual technology and the
importance of encouraging the wide availability of MPEG-4 Visual
decoders and encoders in the market, the patent owners´ intention was
that reasonable royalties should be shared among industry participants
across the entire product chain and applies equally to both wired and
wireless services (especially as the ability to distinguish between them
disappears). The philosophy underlying the use fee was intended to be
consistent with the expected flow of MPEG-4 video transactions so that
those who can pay will and those who can´t aren´t expected to: thus, the
use royalties to be paid by service providers are tied to remuneration -
if service providers or content providers are paid for offering or
providing MPEG-4 video, then patent holders are paid for the use of
their patents; if service providers or content providers are not paid
for offering or providing MPEG-4 video, then patent owners are not paid
for the use of their patents. The entire license including the use fee,
its application to broadcast/cablecast/multichannel environments, etc.,
is under study and will be the subject of further discussion.
This is just the beginning. The licensing terms were just announced on
January 31, and the details of the MPEG-4 Visual license agreement are
still being worked out. Because of the challenge posed by the effort to
produce a joint licensing program requiring a consensus among at least
18 different patent owners and the yet undetermined future
implementations and applications of the emerging MPEG-4 Visual
technology, this may take several months to complete. There will be
much discussion before all of this is sorted out, and changes may be
expected. Again, we appreciate your contribution to this process and
will keep you informed.
Sincerely,
Larry Horn
Vice President, Licensing"
[ 22 Februari 2002: Meddelandet ändrat av: nixon ]
