Patenting a mathematical formula is NOT creating a machine nor is it unique. For example. 2+2=4... apples + apples^2= given outcome. I want to patent this. It's stupid to patent something like that. The same is true for formula algorithms. Algorithms occur in nature. Thus should not be patented. Now, Volley G Mathison inventor of the Electropsychometer had a machine that he could patent. A mathematical formula or algorithm is NOT a machine. Granted algorithms can be considered IP. Copyright should cover that. Or should I patent my video? On May 23, 2010, at 1:21 PM, Tom O'Reilly wrote:> Dear Mr. Johnson, > > Thank you for your additional comments. > > While I appreciate your sentiment, we are trying to address the > situation as it is, not as we may wish it to be. Although Google has > the right to disclaim royalties for its own technologies, if any, it > can't disclaim them for others without their permission. It is believed > that VP8 is based on technologies owned by many different companies and > not Google alone, and that is the issue we expect to address. > > Thus, even if MPEG LA were to leave VP8 alone, the intellectual property > issues underlying VP8 would still persist. To make a comparison, as a > videographer, you would not want someone else either to steal or assume > the right to give away your work without your consent. Therefore, to > the extent VP8 includes technology owned by others (or Google as well) > and that technology is not royalty-free, then a pool license which > removes uncertainties regarding patent rights and royalties by making > that technology widely available on the same terms to everyone would be > beneficial to the market including those who wish to promote it. That > is what we are interested in offering. > > With respect to your wish for a world without the need for MPEG LA, I > appreciate your understanding for what we do and that you think the > world would be better if the various intellectual property rights which > give rise to our service did not exist. But apart from our own economic > interest in trying to create order for the market out of this chaos, as > much as it may sound good, I have my doubts whether that would be > desirable. Similarly, I respectfully disagree with your comment that > software patents are insidious and squelch true creativity. Developers > that invest the time and money to develop an invention or other > intellectual property right like video or music should be reasonably > compensated by those who benefit. This preserves the investment > incentives that enable developers to create the new technology or other > intellectual works in the first place. As much as I would like not to > have to pay to download a song that I like, I realize that paying a > reasonable fee to do so allows the group that created the song to be > fairly compensated for the time and effort it spent to produce the song. > It also gives that group the incentive to create new songs that I may > want to listen to later. > > Finally, I hope the following may be of some interest to you in light of > your comment about not being able to afford coverage under our AVC/H.264 > License: The type of video you describe would fall under Title-by-Title > AVC Video. For each Title that is 12 minutes or less, there is no > royalty payable. For each Title that is longer than 12 minutes in > length, the royalty is 2.0% of the remuneration paid to the Licensee or > $0.02 per Title, whichever is lower. In other words, the royalty would > not exceed $0.02 per copy. > > We do appreciate your feedback. I look forward to responding to any > further comments or questions you may have. > > 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: Saturday, May 22, 2010 11:09 PM > To: Tom O'Reilly > 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/20100523/7d2a9560/attachment-0001.htm
On 05/23/2010 10:10 PM, Dave Johnson wrote:>> Dear Mr. Johnson, >> >> Thank you for your additional comments. >> >> While I appreciate your sentiment, we are trying to address the >> situation as it is, not as we may wish it to be. Although Google has >> the right to disclaim royalties for its own technologies, if any, it >> can't disclaim them for others without their permission. It is believed >> that VP8 is based on technologies owned by many different companies and >> not Google alone, and that is the issue we expect to address.I believe a lot of things too that others may not accept, including that the world is an oblate spheroid. And a lot of people believe a lot of other things. He even used passive voice, "It is believed", as opposed to active, "We believe" or "I believe", thus absolving him from making an outright statement that *he* or MPEG-LA believe that VP8 is covered by patents outside of Google's scope. Why the timing, MPEG-LA? Why do you care now? Why not when On2 announced the codec so long ago? And how about for VP7, or VP6? Where were you when those were announced and used (somewhat) widely? It's only the idea that it's free-as-in-freedom that gets your gears in motion. You're sending an implicit warning that if someone releases their source code, you're going to prey on them and strip their code apart and force your licensing down their throats, or of anyone else adopting it. I'm sorry, but this is too transparent to ignore.>> Thus, even if MPEG LA were to leave VP8 alone, the intellectual property >> issues underlying VP8 would still persist. To make a comparison, as a >> videographer, you would not want someone else either to steal or assume >> the right to give away your work without your consent. Therefore, to >> the extent VP8 includes technology owned by others (or Google as well) >> and that technology is not royalty-free, then a pool license which >> removes uncertainties regarding patent rights and royalties by making >> that technology widely available on the same terms to everyone would be >> beneficial to the market including those who wish to promote it. That >> is what we are interested in offering.Copyright vs. software patents. Dude...you really shouldn't be making such an inappropriate claim. Anonymous Cowards on Slashdot would tear you apart for this level of a mistake.>> With respect to your wish for a world without the need for MPEG LA, I >> appreciate your understanding for what we do and that you think the >> world would be better if the various intellectual property rights which >> give rise to our service did not exist. But apart from our own economic >> interest in trying to create order for the market out of this chaos, as >> much as it may sound good, I have my doubts whether that would be >> desirable. Similarly, I respectfully disagree with your comment that >> software patents are insidious and squelch true creativity. Developers >> that invest the time and money to develop an invention or other >> intellectual property right like video or music should be reasonably >> compensated by those who benefit. This preserves the investment >> incentives that enable developers to create the new technology or other >> intellectual works in the first place. As much as I would like not to >> have to pay to download a song that I like, I realize that paying a >> reasonable fee to do so allows the group that created the song to be >> fairly compensated for the time and effort it spent to produce the song. >> It also gives that group the incentive to create new songs that I may >> want to listen to later.What if I make a derivative of a work, as, say, a parody, or something that is different, but is an obvious homage or tribute to it? Copyright law has fair use. Since you already related copyright and software patents, where's the "fair use" of software patents? None? Then don't bother comparing them in the first place. By the way, who's paying the x264 developers that are making you so much money? They've done the real work for H.264. How about the academic research that was done prior to the patenting of said techniques? Who paid for that? Yes, I think I did, with my taxes. Where's my cut, then?>> Finally, I hope the following may be of some interest to you in light of >> your comment about not being able to afford coverage under our AVC/H.264 >> License: The type of video you describe would fall under Title-by-Title >> AVC Video. For each Title that is 12 minutes or less, there is no >> royalty payable. For each Title that is longer than 12 minutes in >> length, the royalty is 2.0% of the remuneration paid to the Licensee or >> $0.02 per Title, whichever is lower. In other words, the royalty would >> not exceed $0.02 per copy.Okay, so if I record & distribute a video in H.264 that is longer than 12 minutes (shorter than YouTube's normal clips, apparently), I owe $0.02 per copy or less. Why'd I pay for the camera that encodes to that format in the first place, then? The very same creativity you cite above as a comparison to justify your licensing scheme is actually restricted by said licensing terms. You're good, man...it's *hard* to keep all this straight.>> We do appreciate your feedback. I look forward to responding to any >> further comments or questions you may have.Sadly, the same can not be said for me, at least. I don't think I can stomach more on this, but I hope others can continue grilling you. It's not to get some actual words from them about this. Important summary to take away: You owe about $0.02/copy (or 2% of what you're paid per title, whichever is lower) on anything you create with H.264 that's longer than 12 minutes. This is what's important to know.
Dear Mr. Johnson, Thanks for sharing your additional opinion with us. Although the patents in our portfolios are the product of significant research and development efforts, it is not MPEG LA's decision to determine which patents are granted. That is a decision made by patent offices in each jurisdiction. MPEG LA simply addresses the market of patents as it exists by providing a service that brings together patent owners and users so that technical innovations can be made widely available at a reasonable price. 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 ________________________________ From: Dave Johnson [mailto:davefilms.us at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2010 10:10 PM To: Tom O'Reilly Cc: Theora Subject: Re: VP8 Patenting a mathematical formula is NOT creating a machine nor is it unique. For example. 2+2=4... apples + apples^2= given outcome. I want to patent this. It's stupid to patent something like that. The same is true for formula algorithms. Algorithms occur in nature. Thus should not be patented. Now, Volley G Mathison inventor of the Electropsychometer had a machine that he could patent. A mathematical formula or algorithm is NOT a machine. Granted algorithms can be considered IP. Copyright should cover that. Or should I patent my video? On May 23, 2010, at 1:21 PM, Tom O'Reilly wrote: Dear Mr. Johnson, Thank you for your additional comments. While I appreciate your sentiment, we are trying to address the situation as it is, not as we may wish it to be. Although Google has the right to disclaim royalties for its own technologies, if any, it can't disclaim them for others without their permission. It is believed that VP8 is based on technologies owned by many different companies and not Google alone, and that is the issue we expect to address. Thus, even if MPEG LA were to leave VP8 alone, the intellectual property issues underlying VP8 would still persist. To make a comparison, as a videographer, you would not want someone else either to steal or assume the right to give away your work without your consent. Therefore, to the extent VP8 includes technology owned by others (or Google as well) and that technology is not royalty-free, then a pool license which removes uncertainties regarding patent rights and royalties by making that technology widely available on the same terms to everyone would be beneficial to the market including those who wish to promote it. That is what we are interested in offering. With respect to your wish for a world without the need for MPEG LA, I appreciate your understanding for what we do and that you think the world would be better if the various intellectual property rights which give rise to our service did not exist. But apart from our own economic interest in trying to create order for the market out of this chaos, as much as it may sound good, I have my doubts whether that would be desirable. Similarly, I respectfully disagree with your comment that software patents are insidious and squelch true creativity. Developers that invest the time and money to develop an invention or other intellectual property right like video or music should be reasonably compensated by those who benefit. This preserves the investment incentives that enable developers to create the new technology or other intellectual works in the first place. As much as I would like not to have to pay to download a song that I like, I realize that paying a reasonable fee to do so allows the group that created the song to be fairly compensated for the time and effort it spent to produce the song. It also gives that group the incentive to create new songs that I may want to listen to later. Finally, I hope the following may be of some interest to you in light of your comment about not being able to afford coverage under our AVC/H.264 License: The type of video you describe would fall under Title-by-Title AVC Video. For each Title that is 12 minutes or less, there is no royalty payable. For each Title that is longer than 12 minutes in length, the royalty is 2.0% of the remuneration paid to the Licensee or $0.02 per Title, whichever is lower. In other words, the royalty would not exceed $0.02 per copy. We do appreciate your feedback. I look forward to responding to any further comments or questions you may have. 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: Saturday, May 22, 2010 11:09 PM To: Tom O'Reilly 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/20100524/8971a11a/attachment-0001.htm