[theora] VP8

Tom O'Reilly TOreilly at mpegla.com
Mon May 24 07:04:56 PDT 2010

Dear Mr. Johnson, 

Thanks for sharing your additional opinion with us.  Although the
patents in our portfolios are the product of significant research and
development efforts, it is not MPEG LA's decision to determine which
patents are granted.  That is a decision made by patent offices in each
jurisdiction.  MPEG LA simply addresses the market of patents as it
exists by providing a service that brings together patent owners and
users so that technical innovations can be made widely available at a
reasonable price.

Best regards, 

Tom O'Reilly
Manager, Research and Public Relations
Tel: (303) 200-1710
Email: toreilly at mpegla.com
Web: www.mpegla.com



From: Dave Johnson [mailto:davefilms.us at gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2010 10:10 PM
To: Tom O'Reilly
Cc: Theora
Subject: Re: VP8


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

	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


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

	whether or not MPEG LA offers a license.  Our interest is in

	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

	fragmented way that necessitates individual negotiations with

	different patent holders.   If we succeed, what it can mean is

	there will be a more efficient way for the market to access VP8

	rights, and that translates into broader adoption of VP8 for

	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


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


with VP8 is a threat to your income apparently. 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/theora/attachments/20100524/8971a11a/attachment-0001.htm 

More information about the theora mailing list