[M4IF Discuss] On2 and IPR

[Dave Singer]

At 8:55 AM +0000 3/21/02, Iain Richardson (ensigr) wrote:
>I had a look at the source code for On2's VP3 codec : at a first glance
>it seems to be similar to MP4 Simple Profile, i.e. based on DCT with
>half-pixel motion estimation, 4 MVs per macroblock, etc. Given that we
>are told that Simple Profile is covered by the MP4 patent pool, I would
>think that the VP3 may also be open to patent claims. Any comments ?

Without a schedule of patents, one really cannot tell.
However, there does seem to be a class of video codecs (e.g. the ITU 
series) which have either less entanglement or at least have avoided 
law-suits so far, and the ITU (as previously noted) does attempt to 
scan for applicable patents.
>
>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.
>>
-- 
David Singer
Apple Computer/QuickTime