<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">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, <span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 18px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 18px; "><font class="Apple-style-span" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 12px;">Volley G Mathison inventor of the </span></font></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 18px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 18px; "><font class="Apple-style-span" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 12px;">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?</span></font></span><br><div><div>On May 23, 2010, at 1:21 PM, Tom O'Reilly wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>Dear Mr. Johnson,<br><br>Thank you for your additional comments.<br><br>While I appreciate your sentiment, we are trying to address the<br>situation as it is, not as we may wish it to be. Although Google has<br>the right to disclaim royalties for its own technologies, if any, it<br>can't disclaim them for others without their permission. It is believed<br>that VP8 is based on technologies owned by many different companies and<br>not Google alone, and that is the issue we expect to address. <br><br>Thus, even if MPEG LA were to leave VP8 alone, the intellectual property<br>issues underlying VP8 would still persist. To make a comparison, as a<br>videographer, you would not want someone else either to steal or assume<br>the right to give away your work without your consent. Therefore, to<br>the extent VP8 includes technology owned by others (or Google as well)<br>and that technology is not royalty-free, then a pool license which<br>removes uncertainties regarding patent rights and royalties by making<br>that technology widely available on the same terms to everyone would be<br>beneficial to the market including those who wish to promote it. That<br>is what we are interested in offering.<br><br>With respect to your wish for a world without the need for MPEG LA, I<br>appreciate your understanding for what we do and that you think the<br>world would be better if the various intellectual property rights which<br>give rise to our service did not exist. But apart from our own economic<br>interest in trying to create order for the market out of this chaos, as<br>much as it may sound good, I have my doubts whether that would be<br>desirable. Similarly, I respectfully disagree with your comment that<br>software patents are insidious and squelch true creativity. Developers<br>that invest the time and money to develop an invention or other<br>intellectual property right like video or music should be reasonably<br>compensated by those who benefit. This preserves the investment<br>incentives that enable developers to create the new technology or other<br>intellectual works in the first place. As much as I would like not to<br>have to pay to download a song that I like, I realize that paying a<br>reasonable fee to do so allows the group that created the song to be<br>fairly compensated for the time and effort it spent to produce the song.<br>It also gives that group the incentive to create new songs that I may<br>want to listen to later.<br><br>Finally, I hope the following may be of some interest to you in light of<br>your comment about not being able to afford coverage under our AVC/H.264<br>License: The type of video you describe would fall under Title-by-Title<br>AVC Video. For each Title that is 12 minutes or less, there is no<br>royalty payable. For each Title that is longer than 12 minutes in<br>length, the royalty is 2.0% of the remuneration paid to the Licensee or<br>$0.02 per Title, whichever is lower. In other words, the royalty would<br>not exceed $0.02 per copy. <br><br>We do appreciate your feedback. I look forward to responding to any<br>further comments or questions you may have.<br><br>Best regards,<br><br>Tom O'Reilly<br>Manager Research and Public Relations<br>MPEG LA, LLC<br>Tel: (303) 200-1710<br>Email: <a href="mailto:toreilly@mpegla.com">toreilly@mpegla.com</a><br>Web: <a href="http://www.mpegla.com">www.mpegla.com</a><br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: Dave Johnson [mailto:davefilms.us@gmail.com] <br>Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2010 11:09 PM<br>To: Tom O'Reilly<br>Subject: Re: VP8<br><br>The royalty free license that Google provides is enough. I see no<br>reason for MPEG-LA to provide a redundant license that must be purchased<br>from your group. I would encourage your group to just leave VP8 and<br>others alone. If only for the good of the internet. The only interest<br>your group could have is a monetary one. Software patents are insidious<br>and only squelch true creativity. Case in point... I can purchase a<br>$3000.00 USD Canon "professional" camcorder and I am granted license for<br>personal use only. Because of the AVCHD or h.264 codec in the camcorder.<br>This is a shame. I want to make a great short video and sell my work. I<br>cannot due to the license. I cannot afford your prices.<br><br>I hope for a "open standard" for hardware that embraces freedom. A<br>camcorder with the hardware that can record a video in VP8 or other<br>royalty free codec. This is my wish. A world without the need for<br>MPEG-LA.<br><br>It may happen... soon.<br><br>Good day.<br>On May 22, 2010, at 6:31 PM, Tom O'Reilly wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">Dear Mr. Johnson,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Thank you for writing. We appreciate hearing from you and the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">opportunity to address your question.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">MPEG LA provides pool licenses for many different video codecs such as<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">AVC/H.264, MPEG-2, VC-1 and MPEG-4 Part 2. We do not advocate for one<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">over another; rather, we provide one-stop licenses for the convenience<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">of video providers and users who make choices among them. <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Therefore, our announcement of interest in providing a license for VP8<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">is not a matter of protecting our revenue stream from other codecs<br></blockquote>(many<br><blockquote type="cite">of which are used in parallel). To the extent patent rights held by<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">many patent holders are necessary for VP8, they need to be dealt with<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">whether or not MPEG LA offers a license. Our interest is in pooling<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">them so they may be made available for the convenience of users on the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">same terms under a single license as an alternative to the present<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">fragmented way that necessitates individual negotiations with many<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">different patent holders. If we succeed, what it can mean is that<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">there will be a more efficient way for the market to access VP8 patent<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">rights, and that translates into broader adoption of VP8 for video<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">providers and consumers like you who choose to use it in providing and<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">receiving video services.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">If you have additional questions, please let me know. I will be glad<br></blockquote>to<br><blockquote type="cite">answer them.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Best regards,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Tom O'Reilly<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Manager Research and Public Relations<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">MPEG LA, LLC<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Tel: (303) 200-1710<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Email: <a href="mailto:toreilly@mpegla.com">toreilly@mpegla.com</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Web: <a href="http://www.mpegla.com">www.mpegla.com</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">-----Original Message-----<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">From: Dave Johnson [mailto:davefilms.us@gmail.com] <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 11:55 PM<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">To: Info-web<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Subject: VP8<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Just how would MPEG LA benefit me? How can MPEG LA be good for me?<br></blockquote>webM<br><blockquote type="cite">with VP8 is a threat to your income apparently. <br></blockquote><br></div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>