[M4IF Discuss] MPEG-LA, On2 and the DoJ

[Dave Singer]

At 06:16 +0000 3/15/02, Moeritz, Sebastian wrote:
>Well -- let's put it this way, I would not interpret too much into all these
>third-party efforts that are made up to disrupt MPEG-4 etc. They will not
>succeed anyway. Plus, please do not forget -- it seems that it is the "non
>MPEG-4" community that always causes "trouble", not the other way around. I
>wonder why ...
>
>Let's face it --  the licensing issues will be resolved and a mutually
>acceptable solution will be found, because it is the interest and desire of
>all concerned. Period.
>
>Kind regards.
>
>Sebastian Moeritz
>CEO, dicas

These are, of course, my personal opinions.
I think you are exhibiting greater trust and optimism than may be 
warranted.  It seems that there are aspects of the proposed terms 
which indicate that the licensors do not understand what they are 
selling.  In particular, they seem under the mistaken impression that 
MPEG-4 will be used for 'dedicated channel' purposes where the use 
and packaged content fees can be readily calculated (e.g. DVB or 
DVD).  However, MPEG-4 is intended for mixed use environments where 
the simple policing and calculation of those fees alone is onerous, 
irrespective of their magnitude.
They also seem to feel that there are no alternatives, but this is 
not the case.  On2's statements may be clumsy and mistaken, but they 
are at liberty to offer, for example, more acceptable licensing terms 
to industry consortia who simply replace the MPEG-4 video codec with 
theirs.  There are other vendors in a similar position.  There are 
also other standards -- the H.26x series obviously springs to mind.
Others have pointed out that there is an apparent conflict of 
interest for at least one of the patent holders,  who could have a 
plausible reason for not wanting open multi-vendor network-based 
media to become too successful.  I don't need to re-hash these here.
Yes, many companies have a substantial investment behind MPEG-4 
already.  However, they are all prudent enough not to 'throw good 
money after bad' i.e. to realize that they may have made a mistake 
and not invest more simply because of their past investment.
-- 
David Singer
Apple Computer/QuickTime