[opendtv] Re: release: MPEG LA Issues Revised License for DVB-T;Changes Meet Emerging Market Conditions
- From: Tom Barry <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 04:56:51 -0500
John -
A second follow-up on my feelings on software patents and regarding your
comment:
>> I think you need a bit of
>>perspective on the current state of IP licensing vis a vis what came
>>before.
I dug back into my files and came up with the following that I posted to
this list back on 2/5/2002. It might be useful fodder for your software
patent discussion at the retreat (which I can't attend).
- Tom
------- old repost follows --------
RE: [OpenDTV] News: Terms of MPEG-4 Visual Patent Portfolio Licen se
Announced
We are discussing patent law in the context of the Constitution but the
idea of software patents has mostly come about in the last twenty years
or so. AFAIK this has happened without much change in the patent law,
just a change in the perception of what might be granted and enforced.
To see the change I went back and dug up my old copy of "Legal Care for
You SOFTWARE" by Atty Daniel Remer, Addison-Westly 1982. In the chapter
on software patents, p126, it had the following:
----quote:
Patent Requirements
Subject Matter
The first condition is that the invention must fall within one of the
classes specified by Congress (35 U.S. Code (USC) 101). Amoung the
classes allowed are processes, machines, and manufactured items. "Newly
discovered laws of nature" and "mental processes" are specifically
excluded. The Patent Office has traditionally refused to allow
applications for software patents, claiming that the programs, because
they are mathematically based, fall within the law of nature exclusion.
It has been contended that since the square root of 5 couldn't be
patented, neither could a program that calculated it.
Two cases decided by the U.S Supreme Court in 1981 have changed the
position of the Patent Office regarding the law of nature exclusion.
Diamond v. Bradley and Diamond v. Diehr stand for the proposition that a
program is no longer excluded from patent protection simply because it
is a program. These two cases involve a patent application for a
computer controlled rubber curing process. A computer was used to
monitor and continually calculate the exact curing time and temperature
for rubber oil seals. The program was based upon a well-known formula
or algorithm. The claimants, however, did not ask for a patent on the
formula itself but on the entire process, which they claimed was unique.
The Supreme Court held in a 5 to 4 decision that the process as a
whole was a proper subject for patent protection even though part of the
process (the algorithm) was clearly not patentable by itself.
What these decisions apparently mean is that a computer program
might be patentable if the program does not attempt to monopolize a
formula but instead uses the formula to solve a task in a new way. ...
-----end long tedious quote
To me that somewhat shows a shift in thinking over the last couple
decades, which is probably not much of a surprise. But since software
patents themselves are somewhat new to our legal system maybe we
shouldn't be too quick to assume our Founding Fathers had anticipated
them in the Constition.
For those interested, the League for Programming Freedom at MIT has much
more info on all this. See http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/
- Tom
Tom Barry wrote:
> Actually I hold to the older point common before the eighties that
> patents should apply only to tangible inventions, not mathematics,
> algorithms, or software.
>
> - Tom
>
> johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>
>>Do you spend all your time chasing boogeymen? I think you need a bit of
>>perspective on the current state of IP licensing vis a vis what came
>>before. Ron Moore of via licensing had such a presentation today at the
>>tech retreat, and I had the chance to talk to him for a few minutes
>>afterward.
>>
>>Would you rather negotiate non-level terms individually with patent
>>holders? Or -- more likely -- do you consider patents to be theft?
>>
>>John Willkie
>>
>>
>>
>>>I wonder how much power the MPEG-LA has these days. IIRC, they
>>>originally got some informal declaration from the SEC, FTC, Justice
>>>Dept. (one of them?) that they would not be declared any sort of illegal
>>>monopoly or conspiracy in setting up patent pools, even though it
>>>obviously took cooperation and agreements from many large competing
>>>players in any given industry.
>>>
>>>But I wonder if patent pools themselves can eventually wield huge power
>>>and be a possible problem. Can any group conspire to eventually own all
>>>the ideas in the world? And can the ability to collude and set
>>>licensing terms for any technology enable the power to create barriers
>>>to entry to new participants.
>>>
>>>For instance, did they manage to kill WM9/VC1? It would be very strange
>>>to image MSFT as a victim. ;-)
>>>
>>>- Tom
>>>
>>>
>>>Donald Koeleman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>MPEG LA Issues Revised License for DVB-T; Changes Meet Emerging Market
>>>>Conditions
>>>>Jan 24, 2005 00:01
>>>>MPEG LA Issues Revised License for DVB-T; Changes Meet Emerging Market
>>>>Conditions
>>>>DENVER --(Business Wire)-- Jan. 24, 2005
>>>>MPEG LA, LLC announced today that it has issued a
>>>>revised DVB-T Patent Portfolio License. The new License will provide
>>>>uninterrupted coverage to current Licensees and coverage to new
>>>>Licensees under patents that are essential to the DVB-T Standard
>>>>(European Telecommunications Standardization Institute ("ETSI")
>>>>document ETS300744
>>>
>>>) adopted for use in digital terrestrial television
>>>
>>>
>>>>broadcasting in Europe, India, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand and
>>>>other countries.
>>>>
>>>> The revised License has been restructured to be more convenient to
>>>>licensees in selecting the coverage they want for their DVB-T
>>>>receivers (e.g., in digital television sets and set-top boxes). Under
>>>>the revised License, a licensee may select either (a) the same
>>>>coverage provided by the old License under all essential DVB-T patents
>>>>at the same royalty of 0.75 euro per product or (b) a subset of that
>>>>coverage at a reduced royalty of 0.50 euro per product.
>>>>
>>>> "As DVB-T implementation moves into high gear in Europe and other
>>>>markets throughout the world, MPEG LA is pleased to be able to meet
>>>>the emerging demand with a revised patent license making it even more
>>>>convenient and affordable for users to gain access to the essential
>>>>technology they need," said Baryn S. Futa, Chief Executive Officer of
>>>>MPEG LA.
>>>>
>>>> For more information about the new DVB-T Patent Portfolio License
>>>>or to request a copy of the License, please visit
>>>>http://www.mpegla.com/dvb/.
>>>>
>>>> The DVB-T Patent Portfolio License is provided for the convenience
>>>>of DVB-T users enabling them to obtain coverage under essential
>>>>patents owned by multiple patent holders in a single license as an
>>>>alternative to negotiating separate licenses with each of them.
>>>>Current holders of essential patents in the DVB-T Patent Portfolio
>>>>License include France Telecom, Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.,
>>>>Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. and Victor Company of Japan
>>>>(JVC). It is MPEG LA's objective to include as much essential
>>>>intellectual property as possible for the benefit of licensees.
>>>>Therefore, any party that believes it has a patent which is essential
>>>>to the DVB-T standard and would like to participate in the DVB-T
>>>>Patent Portfolio License is invited to submit its patent(s) for an
>>>>evaluation of essentiality by MPEG LA's patent experts and inclusion
>>>>in the License if determined to be essential. Interested parties may
>>>>request a copy of the terms and procedures governing patent
>>>>submissions by going to http://www.mpegla.com/dvb/dvb-licensors.cfm.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> MPEG LA, LLC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> MPEG LA is the world leader in one-stop technology platform patent
>>>>licenses, enabling users to acquire patent rights necessary for a
>>>>particular technology standard or platform from multiple patent
>>>>holders in a single transaction as an alternative to negotiating a
>>>>license with each of them. Wherever an independently administered
>>>>one-stop patent license would provide a convenient marketplace
>>>>alternative to assist users with implementation of their technology
>>>>choices, the licensing model pioneered and employed by MPEG LA may
>>>>provide a solution. MPEG LA is not related to any standards agency and
>>>>is not an affiliate of any patent holder. MPEG LA licenses portfolios
>>>>of essential patents for the MPEG-2, IEEE 1394, DVB-T, MPEG-4 Visual
>>>>(Part 2), MPEG-4 Systems and AVC/H.264 (also known as MPEG-4 Part 10)
>>>>standards. MPEG LA is also facilitating the development of alternative
>>>>patent portfolio licenses relating to DRM Reference Model v 3.0
>>>>including OMA DRM 1.0 and OMA DRM 2.0, the proposed SMPTE VC-1
>>>>standard, the ATSC standard, and the DVB-H standard. In addition, MPEG
>>>>LA actively seeks to adopt its alternative patent licensing model in
>>>>other industries including biotech and pharmaceutical. For more
>>>>information, please refer to http://www.mpegla.com.
>>>>
>>>>MPEG LA
>>>>Lawrence Horn, 301-986-6660
>>>>fax: 301-986-8575
>>>>email: lhorn@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>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.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>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.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: