Oh dear, what is the point in MPEG-LA, who call themselves "world leader in one-stop technology platform patent licensing" if it turns out that a holder of an essential patent isnt a member?
The devil is in the detail which I dont have. If AT&Ts patent does not cover essential technology used in all forms of mpeg4, then only certain implementations of mpeg4 by companies in hardware or software will be affected. If the technology is not essential, companies could remove it rather than pay up, if the loss of functionality isnt crippling. If it is essential technology that mpeg4 will not function without, then companies will either have to contest AT&T's claims, pay up, or stop using mpeg4. Theoretically, and depending what the technology is, this could also affect licensing arrangements for people who distribute videos in mpeg4 format. At the moment most videobloggers dont think about this issue, and luckily MPEG-LA license scheme for mpeg4 means people dont have to (because content under a certain length/number of viewers/pay or not doesnt need an additional license). But if AT&T's patent covers technology thats in the actual resulting mpeg4 files themselves, not just the software & hardware to play & make mpeg4, then this could have ramifications. The stuff I am waffling about in this paragraph is the same sort of issue that makes DivX need to have a licensing agreement for people who distribute divx files on the net. The AT&T complication pushes back my hopes regarding timescale when DivX may improve their license to be more videoblog firends, but this is just speculation. I am not a lawyer, the above conclusions are as near as I can personally get without being one or having more information. Steve of Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Holy crap. You have no idea how important this is to **me** in > particular. > > First of all, thank you for posting this. > > Sonic is the company that just in the past year or two bought Roxio, > which everyone in this forum knows is what I swear by for my movie > creation. > > This is some pretty wild news. It's kind of comical that I haven't > been keeping up in the forums lately--and I stumble upon this. > > And you know? The Roxio guys in the forums there have been avoiding > my questions like the plague. This all makes sense now. > > Just for reference-- > http://forums.support.roxio.com/index.php?act=ST&f=14&t=235 > I was asking why Roxio 7 had mp4 support, and suddenly it was yanked > from Roxio 8. Now I know. > > Susan > http://vlog.kitykity.com > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Digital" <digitalbuddha@> wrote: > > > > AT&T is going to go after a patent claim on some underlying > > technologies in MPEG-4. Named companies "infringing" include: Apple, > > CyberLink, DivX, InterVideo, and Sonic Solutions. Pentax and Nero > > already license this technology from AT&T... > > > > http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1923218,00.asp > > > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
