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

[Dave Singer]

At 13:28 +0100 3/18/02, AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/REN wrote:
>Hi Dave, all,
>
>  > 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.
>
>On2 is not capable of guaranteing that their codec is IPR free and 
>IPR exist on the H.26L baseline. These "solutions" are therefore 
>confronted with the same pb. as MPEG-4. On2 is amalgaming Open 
>Source and Royalty free solutions to get more PR points. H.26L is a 
>fair attempt to provide a Royalty free standard but in its current 
>shape it is unable to guarantee success.
>

Nobody, not even the MPEG-4 visual patent holders, can guarantee 
success;  they are as vulnerable as anyone else to 'submarine' 
patents.  Anyone using any technology, licensed or not, risks a 
patent popping up from nowhere.  The degree of risk may differ, of 
course -- depending on many factors, including the diligence of the 
customer and licensors.
-- 
David Singer
Apple Computer/QuickTime