-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
How I know MPEG-LA is bluffing with its FUD against
,----[ Quote ]
| Even just before Google released VP8 and
| WebM as Free Software, MPEG-LA and likely
| partners started rattling their
| (dark)light sabers threatening to assemble
| a patent pool to collect royalties from
| WebM users, just like they do with MPEG
| and H.264. Please bear with me while I
| show why it's nothing but a bluff to scare
| businesses and people away from the
| multimedia format that will displace the
| MPEG-LA golden-egg layer. Unless their FUD
| campaign succeeds, that is.
|
| It can be taken as a given that MPEG-LA or
| other patent trolls will attempt to
| collect royalties from any multimedia
| formats. What got my attention was a
| combination of the fanfare, the timing and
| the wording of the press announcements.
|
| Smart patent trolls don't scare people
| away from technology covered by their
| patents: they instead let businesse
`----
http://fsfla.org/svnwiki/blogs/lxo/2010-05-26-calling-on-mpegla-bluff
MPEG-LAâs patents exhausted by camera sale? (to be updated)
,----[ Quote ]
| When you buy a digital camera, can holders
| of video patents claim ownership of your
| videos? They certainly claim to. When
| looking into this, I found an interesting
| 2008 opinion from the US Supreme Court
| that suggests, to me (IANAPL), that
| "exhaustion" through "first sale" might
| save our bacon: Quanta v. LGE.
|
| Hereâs the article that raised the problem
| of cameras coming with "for non-commercial
| use only" patent licences:
|
| * Why Our Civilizationâs Video Art and
| Culture is Threatened by the MPEG-LA,
| by Eugenia Loli-Queru
| * The 140+ comments
|
| And hereâs the 2008 court opinion Iâm
| reading:
|
| * quanta.pdf (Quanta v. LGE)
|
| Patent exhaustion is a well-known
| principle. It says that the patent
| holderâs rights/powers are exhausted after
| the first sale of the patented item.
`----
http://news.swpat.org/2010/05/mpeglas-patents-exhausted/
Patent Troll Larry Horn of MPEG-LA Assembling VP8 Patent Pool
,----[ Quote ]
| Let the spreading of FUD begin! Known
| patent troll Larry Horn, CEO of MPEG-LA,
| is clearly feeling the heat - a heat that
| might set fire to his company's license to
| print money. After a decade of empty
| threats towards Theora, the company is
| apparently putting its it's-impossible-to-
| create-a-video-codec-that-doesn't-
| infringe-on-our-stuff attitude into
| practice once again, by assembling a
| patent pool to go after VP8. Google, in
| the meantime, is not impressed.
`----
http://www.tuxmachines.org/node/45446
Recent:
10 questions for MPEG LA on H.264
,----[ Quote ]
| MPEG LA: Yes, since the Web site is
| receiving remuneration for the AVC video
| content it makes available on a
| subscription basis, it would benefit from
| the coverage our AVC License provides. The
| amount of royalties owed, if any, would
| depend on the number of Subscribers to
| that website during a calendar year:
|
| 100,000 or fewer subscribers/year = no
| royalty;
| 100,001 - 250,000 subscribers/year =
| $25,000;
| 250,001 - 500,000 subscribers/year =
| $50,000;
| 500,001 - 1,000,000 subscribers/year =
| $75,000;
| and more than 1,000,000 subscribers/year =
| $100,000.
`----
http://www.betanews.com/article/10-questions-for-MPEG-LA-on-H264/1274306999
Canonical clarifies its H.264 licence
,----[ Quote ]
| When purchasing an OEM machine with Ubuntu
| pre-installed, there is currently no way to
| tell, without the manufacturer explicitly
| specifying them, which software and codecs
| are bundled with the machine. A device may
| be validated as Ubuntu Compatible, which
| means the OEM has tested the system and
| Canonical has verified the test, or as
| Ubuntu Certified, which means that
| Canonical have performed the testing.
| Kenyon points to the Ubuntu Certified list
| on the Canonical site, which lists systems
| from Lenovo, ASUSTek, HP, Toshiba, Samsung
| and Dell. Kenyon added "We have explored
| setting some minimum requirements for
| codecs, but this is not something that we
| presently do".
|
| So the rule of thumb is that an arbitrary
| Ubuntu system does not have a H.264 licence
| via Canonical, unless it's an OEM system
| which specifically lists the H.264 licence
| in its documentation or marketing
| materials.
`----
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Canonical-clarifies-its-H-264-licence-993182.html
Canonical explains Ubuntu unfree video choice
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/05/canonical_h264_video/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkv+gYQACgkQU4xAY3RXLo7BowCgqcW3C7df2ncBDGuhwJVu+IxV
IbMAn0FhIniiTb0DGK7PJ5xVtvjDc3Z2
=7xpB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
