[M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article

[Tom McMahon]

Sounds like the classic definition of willful commoditization by a
Superpower.
Does Windows Media step on IP inherent in MPEG-2 or MPEG-4?
-----Original Message-----
From: Jordan Greenhall [mailto:jgreenhall   divxnetworks.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2024 10:02 AM
To: 'Jeff Handy'; Jordan Greenhall; discuss   lists.m4if.org
Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article
Jeff, what I am saying is this: I am in front of customers every day.
These are the customers who MPEG-LA wants to use MPEG-4.  Network
operators, content providers, consumer electronics manufacturers.  Most
of the largest such companies in the world.  These customers *actually*
and *definitively* consider Windows Media to be an alternative to
MPEG-4.  In fact, as microsoft will occasionally *pay* these customers
to use Windows Media, rather than asking them to pay what can be a very
large royalty, these customers are asking me why MPEG-4 is even a viable
alternative to Windows Media.   This is in every medium - High
Definition DVD, Cable VOD, FTTH Broadcast, Wireless Broadcast, chipsets,
you name it.  And Windows Media is not alone.  
-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-admin   lists.m4if.org [mailto:discuss-admin   lists.m4if.org]
On Behalf Of Jeff Handy
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2024 9:12 AM
To: Jordan Greenhall; discuss   lists.m4if.org
Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article
Jordan,
So are you saying that a codec is a replacement for an interoperable
platform??  Are you also saying the MP3 is being used in DVD and
satellite distribution?  Further are you REALLY trying to say WiMP is an
alternative to MPEG-4??  This is ludicrous.  I give up on trying to be
logical and objective  ;-)  I'm opting out of this discussion.  Sorry.
Jeff
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020309/380fa676/attachment.html