Begin forwarded message:> From: "Tom O'Reilly" <TOreilly at mpegla.com> > Date: May 22, 2010 6:31:50 PM CDT > To: "Dave Johnson" <davefilms.us at gmail.com> > Cc: "Info-web" <Info-web at mpegla.com> > Subject: RE: VP8 > > Dear Mr. Johnson, > > Thank you for writing. We appreciate hearing from you and the > opportunity to address your question. > > MPEG LA provides pool licenses for many different video codecs such as > AVC/H.264, MPEG-2, VC-1 and MPEG-4 Part 2. We do not advocate for one > over another; rather, we provide one-stop licenses for the convenience > of video providers and users who make choices among them. > > Therefore, our announcement of interest in providing a license for VP8 > is not a matter of protecting our revenue stream from other codecs (many > of which are used in parallel). To the extent patent rights held by > many patent holders are necessary for VP8, they need to be dealt with > whether or not MPEG LA offers a license. Our interest is in pooling > them so they may be made available for the convenience of users on the > same terms under a single license as an alternative to the present > fragmented way that necessitates individual negotiations with many > different patent holders. If we succeed, what it can mean is that > there will be a more efficient way for the market to access VP8 patent > rights, and that translates into broader adoption of VP8 for video > providers and consumers like you who choose to use it in providing and > receiving video services. > > If you have additional questions, please let me know. I will be glad to > answer them. > > Best regards, > > Tom O'Reilly > Manager Research and Public Relations > MPEG LA, LLC > Tel: (303) 200-1710 > Email: toreilly at mpegla.com > Web: www.mpegla.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Johnson [mailto:davefilms.us at gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 11:55 PM > To: Info-web > Subject: VP8 > > Just how would MPEG LA benefit me? How can MPEG LA be good for me? webM > with VP8 is a threat to your income apparently.-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/theora/attachments/20100522/bf9ce214/attachment.htm
Begin forwarded message:> From: Dave Johnson <davefilms.us at gmail.com> > Date: May 22, 2010 10:08:36 PM CDT > To: "Tom O'Reilly" <TOreilly at mpegla.com> > Subject: Re: VP8 > > The royalty free license that Google provides is enough. I see no reason for MPEG-LA to provide a redundant license that must be purchased from your group. I would encourage your group to just leave VP8 and others alone. If only for the good of the internet. The only interest your group could have is a monetary one. Software patents are insidious and only squelch true creativity. Case in point... I can purchase a $3000.00 USD Canon "professional" camcorder and I am granted license for personal use only. Because of the AVCHD or h.264 codec in the camcorder. This is a shame. I want to make a great short video and sell my work. I cannot due to the license. I cannot afford your prices. > > I hope for a "open standard" for hardware that embraces freedom. A camcorder with the hardware that can record a video in VP8 or other royalty free codec. This is my wish. A world without the need for MPEG-LA. > > It may happen... soon. > > Good day. > On May 22, 2010, at 6:31 PM, Tom O'Reilly wrote: > >> Dear Mr. Johnson, >> >> Thank you for writing. We appreciate hearing from you and the >> opportunity to address your question. >> >> MPEG LA provides pool licenses for many different video codecs such as >> AVC/H.264, MPEG-2, VC-1 and MPEG-4 Part 2. We do not advocate for one >> over another; rather, we provide one-stop licenses for the convenience >> of video providers and users who make choices among them. >> >> Therefore, our announcement of interest in providing a license for VP8 >> is not a matter of protecting our revenue stream from other codecs (many >> of which are used in parallel). To the extent patent rights held by >> many patent holders are necessary for VP8, they need to be dealt with >> whether or not MPEG LA offers a license. Our interest is in pooling >> them so they may be made available for the convenience of users on the >> same terms under a single license as an alternative to the present >> fragmented way that necessitates individual negotiations with many >> different patent holders. If we succeed, what it can mean is that >> there will be a more efficient way for the market to access VP8 patent >> rights, and that translates into broader adoption of VP8 for video >> providers and consumers like you who choose to use it in providing and >> receiving video services. >> >> If you have additional questions, please let me know. I will be glad to >> answer them. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Tom O'Reilly >> Manager Research and Public Relations >> MPEG LA, LLC >> Tel: (303) 200-1710 >> Email: toreilly at mpegla.com >> Web: www.mpegla.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dave Johnson [mailto:davefilms.us at gmail.com] >> Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 11:55 PM >> To: Info-web >> Subject: VP8 >> >> Just how would MPEG LA benefit me? How can MPEG LA be good for me? webM >> with VP8 is a threat to your income apparently. >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/theora/attachments/20100522/b70e6ef8/attachment.htm
On 05/22/2010 11:09 PM, Dave Johnson wrote:>> Thank you for writing. We appreciate hearing from you and the >> opportunity to address your question. >> >> MPEG LA provides pool licenses for many different video codecs such as >> AVC/H.264, MPEG-2, VC-1 and MPEG-4 Part 2. We do not advocate for one >> over another; rather, we provide one-stop licenses for the convenience >> of video providers and users who make choices among them. >> >> Therefore, our announcement of interest in providing a license for VP8 >> is not a matter of protecting our revenue stream from other codecs (many >> of which are used in parallel). To the extent patent rights held by >> many patent holders are necessary for VP8, they need to be dealt with >> whether or not MPEG LA offers a license. Our interest is in pooling >> them so they may be made available for the convenience of users on the >> same terms under a single license as an alternative to the present >> fragmented way that necessitates individual negotiations with many >> different patent holders. If we succeed, what it can mean is that >> there will be a more efficient way for the market to access VP8 patent >> rights, and that translates into broader adoption of VP8 for video >> providers and consumers like you who choose to use it in providing and >> receiving video services. >> >> If you have additional questions, please let me know. I will be glad to >> answer them.How helpful of them! But seriously, this is some really messed-up thinking. The folks over at MPEG-LA really cannot grasp the concept that not everything needs to be held under a software patent. Don't get me wrong, I am certain that current patent law in the US can cause complications and issues can be taken to court, but that doesn't mean it's right or logical. Anyway, this is still all talk and FUD until they explicitly say what's out there. Sadly, what they're going to be doing is going to individual companies that implement WebM or VP8 and scare them with their dogwyers and get them to buy an unnecessary license from them anyway. Google and other supporters of WebM need to make a very firm statement stating that this kind of behavior from MPEG-LA is unacceptable and that they cannot bully around smaller (or larger) businesses.
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Denver Gingerich <denver at ossguy.com> wrote:> On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Richard Watts <rrw at kynesim.co.uk> wrote: >> ?Obviously, I'd rather hope that google's due diligence was good >> enough that there were no essential patents required for VP8 per se - >> there obviously will be for VP8's use with things like MPEG-2 >> systems - but if it wasn't, I'd much rather have the MPEG-LA's >> non-discriminatory and generally reasonably priced and accessible >> terms than (e.g.) the audio codec peoples' multi-dollar per device >> royalties and 'we'll licence only if you refuse to play any other >> format' terms. > > Do you have a reference for this statement about audio codec licensing > terms? ?I'd be interested to learn more about it. >It's not a secret: http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/ But I can't agree with the assessment of MPEG-LA as good guys. If they were good guys they wouldn't be spreading FUD about Theora and VP8 to the press-- they'd simply offer their services as a pool assembly service rather than spreading fear about competitors to their pool. They also wouldn't be operating a hardly arms length NPE patent litigation firm (http://www.mobilemediaideas.com/).