[theora] VP8

Dave Johnson davefilms.us at gmail.com
Sun May 23 19:10:04 PDT 2010

Patenting a mathematical formula is NOT creating a machine nor is it unique. For example. 2+2=4... apples + apples^2= given outcome. I want to patent this. It's stupid to patent something like that. The same is true for formula algorithms. Algorithms occur in nature. Thus should not be patented. Now, Volley G Mathison inventor of the Electropsychometer had a machine that he could patent. A mathematical formula or algorithm is NOT a machine. Granted algorithms can be considered IP. Copyright should cover that. Or should I patent my video?
On May 23, 2010, at 1:21 PM, Tom O'Reilly wrote:

> Dear Mr. Johnson,
> Thank you for your additional comments.
> While I appreciate your sentiment, we are trying to address the
> situation as it is, not as we may wish it to be.  Although Google has
> the right to disclaim royalties for its own technologies, if any, it
> can't disclaim them for others without their permission.  It is believed
> that VP8 is based on technologies owned by many different companies and
> not Google alone, and that is the issue we expect to address.  
> Thus, even if MPEG LA were to leave VP8 alone, the intellectual property
> issues underlying VP8 would still persist.  To make a comparison, as a
> videographer, you would not want someone else either to steal or assume
> the right to give away your work without your consent.  Therefore, to
> the extent VP8 includes technology owned by others (or Google as well)
> and that technology is not royalty-free, then a pool license which
> removes uncertainties regarding patent rights and royalties by making
> that technology widely available on the same terms to everyone would be
> beneficial to the market including those who wish to promote it.  That
> is what we are interested in offering.
> With respect to your wish for a world without the need for MPEG LA, I
> appreciate your understanding for what we do and that you think the
> world would be better if the various intellectual property rights which
> give rise to our service did not exist.  But apart from our own economic
> interest in trying to create order for the market out of this chaos, as
> much as it may sound good, I have my doubts whether that would be
> desirable.  Similarly, I respectfully disagree with your comment that
> software patents are insidious and squelch true creativity.  Developers
> that invest the time and money to develop an invention or other
> intellectual property right like video or music should be reasonably
> compensated by those who benefit.  This preserves the investment
> incentives that enable developers to create the new technology or other
> intellectual works in the first place.  As much as I would like not to
> have to pay to download a song that I like, I realize that paying a
> reasonable fee to do so allows the group that created the song to be
> fairly compensated for the time and effort it spent to produce the song.
> It also gives that group the incentive to create new songs that I may
> want to listen to later.
> Finally, I hope the following may be of some interest to you in light of
> your comment about not being able to afford coverage under our AVC/H.264
> License:  The type of video you describe would fall under Title-by-Title
> AVC Video.  For each Title that is 12 minutes or less, there is no
> royalty payable.  For each Title that is longer than 12 minutes in
> length, the royalty is 2.0% of the remuneration paid to the Licensee or
> $0.02 per Title, whichever is lower.  In other words, the royalty would
> not exceed $0.02 per copy.  
> We do appreciate your feedback.  I look forward to responding to any
> further comments or questions you may have.
> Best regards,
> Tom O'Reilly
> Manager Research and Public Relations
> Tel: (303) 200-1710
> Email: toreilly at mpegla.com
> Web: www.mpegla.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Johnson [mailto:davefilms.us at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2010 11:09 PM
> To: Tom O'Reilly
> Subject: Re: VP8
> The royalty free license that  Google provides is enough. I see no
> reason for MPEG-LA to provide a redundant license that must be purchased
> from your group. I would encourage your group to just leave VP8 and
> others alone. If only for the good of the internet. The only interest
> your group could have is a monetary one. Software patents are insidious
> and only squelch true creativity. Case in point... I can purchase a
> $3000.00 USD Canon "professional" camcorder and I am granted license for
> personal use only. Because of the AVCHD or h.264 codec in the camcorder.
> This is a shame. I want to make a great short video and sell my work. I
> cannot due to the license. I cannot afford your prices.
> I hope for a "open standard" for hardware that embraces freedom. A
> camcorder with the hardware that can record a video in VP8 or other
> royalty free codec. This is my wish. A world without the need for
> It may happen... soon.
> Good day.
> On May 22, 2010, at 6:31 PM, Tom O'Reilly wrote:
>> Dear Mr. Johnson,
>> Thank you for writing.  We appreciate hearing from you and the
>> opportunity to address your question.
>> MPEG LA provides pool licenses for many different video codecs such as
>> AVC/H.264, MPEG-2, VC-1 and MPEG-4 Part 2.  We do not advocate for one
>> over another; rather, we provide one-stop licenses for the convenience
>> of video providers and users who make choices among them.  
>> Therefore, our announcement of interest in providing a license for VP8
>> is not a matter of protecting our revenue stream from other codecs
> (many
>> of which are used in parallel).  To the extent patent rights held by
>> many patent holders are necessary for VP8, they need to be dealt with
>> whether or not MPEG LA offers a license.  Our interest is in pooling
>> them so they may be made available for the convenience of users on the
>> same terms under a single license as an alternative to the present
>> fragmented way that necessitates individual negotiations with many
>> different patent holders.   If we succeed, what it can mean is that
>> there will be a more efficient way for the market to access VP8 patent
>> rights, and that translates into broader adoption of VP8 for video
>> providers and consumers like you who choose to use it in providing and
>> receiving video services.
>> If you have additional questions, please let me know.  I will be glad
> to
>> answer them.
>> Best regards,
>> Tom O'Reilly
>> Manager Research and Public Relations
>> Tel: (303) 200-1710
>> Email: toreilly at mpegla.com
>> Web: www.mpegla.com
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dave Johnson [mailto:davefilms.us at gmail.com] 
>> Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 11:55 PM
>> To: Info-web
>> Subject: VP8
>> Just how would MPEG LA benefit me? How can MPEG LA be good for me?
> webM
>> with VP8 is a threat to your income apparently. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/theora/attachments/20100523/7d2a9560/attachment-0001.htm 

More information about the theora mailing list