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

[Jordan Greenhall]

Query. If this is the case, how have Microsoft and Real managed to get
away with free "proprietary" solutions for so long?  A logical guarantee
is not necessary, all that is necessary is practical success in
licensing a proprietary solution.  
-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-admin   lists.m4if.org [mailto:discuss-admin   lists.m4if.org]
On Behalf Of AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/REN
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 4:29 AM
To: Dave Singer; M4IF Discussion List (E-mail); Larry Horn
Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] MPEG-LA, On2 and the DoJ
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.
cu, 
O. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/discuss/attachments/20020318/2097be46/attachment.html