[opendtv] Re: News: M'soft coup starts media codec fight
- From: "Kilroy Hughes" <kilroyh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:21:01 -0700
<JW>=20
"The real sticking point with the licensing terms between AVC and VC-1
is
indemnification. There is no indemnification required or addressed,
since
you have all the license you need with AVC's licensing terms. With
VC-1,
Microsoft grants you no such assurance; you grant them a license to your
improvements to their codecs, and you share liability."
</JW>
Patent pools don't provide indemnification. The 2 main pools for AVC
Main Profile don't include all the known essential patents for that
standard. Call has just been issued to collect patent holders on the
recent amended version, which is a superset, and will uncover even more
essential patents.
Even mature technology with pools, MPEG-2, have patent holders
occasionally surfacing with newly granted or old patents naming their
price for deployed and new product. A manufacturer can always argue in
court in any/all countries about patent abuse if the asking price is
higher than comparable patents, etc.; but that's hardly risk free and
not included in the pool price. =20
On new technology like AVC, there will be many patents in many countries
issuing over the next few years that arguably read on implementations,
whether or not they might be considered "essential" and eligible for one
of the patent pools. It is patent holder's option to join any pool or
not, and some think they can cut a better deal on their own. Many
patents that read on standards come from inventors who had nothing to do
with developing the standard, and may have no interest in its success
(some video patents were developed for analog video, or for pure
mathematics, for instance). A lawyer with a good patent search engine
might find and buy a cheap patent that was targeted at vacuum cleaners
but reads on video compression, then watch out.
The best new format promoters can do is publish specs, call patent
pools, maybe get hacks to write gossip columns to get everyone worked up
about it (smiley), and otherwise alert patent holders and give them the
opportunity to join patent pools. Neither a patent pool, standards
body, nor individual contributor is going to offer patent
indemnification to implementers of a standard. =20
<JW>
"With VC-1, Microsoft grants you no such assurance; you grant them a
license to your improvements to their codecs, and you share liability."
</JW>
Microsoft doesn't license VC-1. The spec will be published by SMPTE
along with decoder source code and test streams under SMPTE copyright.
MPEG-LA will offer a patent license. Anyone can implement VC-1 without
talking to Microsoft.
If you want to get Microsoft's source code for Windows Media Player,
WMV-9 codec (encode/decode), or some of the hundreds of other features,
functions, and implementation details in that product contained in
millions of lines of source code ... then you have to sign a Microsoft
license. In addition to whatever protection is in the license,
implementers know that Microsoft has a stake in protecting that product
implementation from patent terrorists (since they ship >10^8/yr) and is
the bank account that will be targeted. You can hide behind the big
bully. With a collaboratively developed technology, it isn't clear who
gets to take the hit and defend implementers. MPEG and SMPTE aren't in
the business of defending implementers. It's a zero budget item at ITU.
Way out of scope.
You are right to be concerned about patent risks, and royalty risks; by
that I mean add-ons for patents that haven't been included in pools,
rates for applications, like streaming, that haven't been priced by
pools yet ("go ahead, take a shot, we'll talk price later"), and price
changes at end of current license term when there's an installed base
and no viable option to turn off broadcast signals and associated use
fees. The future is uncertain, but we need to act now; so the best
option is healthy competition so market forces will help produce an
efficient (economically speaking) outcome.
I agree with Craig that competition already yielded a huge benefit in
the current license rates, use fees, etc. vs. initial royalty
expectations when there was only one gas station in town. The companies
or divisions of companies that make their money from making products are
supporting this, and those that make their money from taxing patents are
less happy, but may get more in the end from successful adoption of both
advanced codecs. (vs. the alternative example of MPEG-4 part 2, which
was priced and delayed out of significance.)
Kilroy Hughes
Program Manager, Media Standards
Microsoft Corporation
-----Original Message-----
From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of John Willkie
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 12:00
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [opendtv] Re: News: M'soft coup starts media codec fight
Craig,
"Better" misses the point. If you are the only gas station in a hundred
miles, you can charge what "the market will bear" -- you set your own
prices. If there is a competing station across the street, the "market"
will not let you charge much more than the competition. If the
competing
station is two miles away, you can charge just a little bit more than
the
other station, were you so interested.
Also, you ACT as if you know something of the licensing terms. Since
you
phrase it that way, you know little or nothing.
The real sticking point with the licensing terms between AVC and VC-1 is
indemnification. There is no indemnification required or addressed,
since
you have all the license you need with AVC's licensing terms. With
VC-1,
Microsoft grants you no such assurance; you grant them a license to your
improvements to their codecs, and you share liability.
INDEMNIFICATION is the KEY issue these days. Getting no indemnification
from MS and -- if sued for IP -- having to share the defendant's table
with
them is a no-brainer: only idiots will take those terms. MS has endless
money and can defend all the way to them losing. If you drop out when
you
run out of money, you have to settle with the plaintiffs.
This is not new information on this list: I've said it at least once
before, on this very topic. Rob K. has even alluded to it. I've even
discussed it with people at last year's Tech Retreat.
I won't go into my work-around on this (AVC and VC-1 format descriptors
are
included in my metadata/PSIP generator) but to complain about pennies
per
unit in the light of millions of dollars of exposure (ever try to hire
an IP
attorney? how about an IP attorney who appears in court) is FOLLY,
abstruse
and "unhelpful."
John Willkie
-----Original Message-----
From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Craig Birkmaier
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 8:22 AM
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [opendtv] Re: News: M'soft coup starts media codec fight
At 7:44 PM -0400 10/20/04, Tom Barry wrote:
>Even if it takes forever for VC-1 to become a standard it at least has
>the useful function of putting competitive pressure on the licensing
>terms for AVC.
>
Exactly how does it accomplish this?
Have you seen the licensing terms?
Do you know what the companies that hold IP in both AVC and VC-1 are
demanding?
I will be amazed if the terms for VC-1 are any better than those for
AVC.
Regards
Craig
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
=20
=20
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org=20
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
