MPEG-LA announces VC-1 licensing terms

[zambelli]

MPEG-LA news release:
http://www.mpegla.com/news/n_06-08-17_pr.pdf

VC-1 homepage:
http://www.mpegla.com/pid/vc1/

A good 3rd party summary:
http://www.emedialive.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=11741

The VC-1 essential patent holders currently include DAEWOO Electronics Corporation, France Telecom, societe anonyme, Fujitsu Limited, Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., LG Electronics Inc., Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. (Panasonic), Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Microsoft Corporation, Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation (NTT), Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Sharp Corporation, Sony Corporation, Telenor ASA, Toshiba Corporation, and Victor Company of Japan, Limited (JVC).

[zambelli]

Also, Microsoft has updated its own Windows Media Components licensing terms:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/licensing/agreements.aspx

Anyway... Most of this stuff doesn't really affect end users, so don't worry about it unless you're already a WM licensee or plan on developing technology utilizing VC-1 in the future. :) I just thought I'd post it as FYI.

[bond]

Anyway... Most of this stuff doesn't really affect end users, so don't worry about it unless you're already a WM licensee or plan on developing technology utilizing VC-1 in the future. :) I just thought I'd post it as FYI.zambelli, the doom9 forum sees itself as more than just a forum for endusers wanting to encode. we are deeply interested in encoding technologies and everything that surrounds them, eg development, patents and licensing terms

that said, thanks a lot for pointing out those very important informations!

its kinda shocking that hddvd/bluray added mandatory vc-1 support to their specs without even knowing what it will cost (not that i didnt point this out before, but i guess they dont care about my opinion :D )

its time to cross check with the avc/h.264 and mpeg-4 asp (as vc-1 imho is between those) licensing terms i guess

[GodofaGap]

ts kinda shocking that hddvd/bluray added mandatory vc-1 support to their specs without even knowing what it will cost (not that i didnt point this out before, but i guess they dont care about my opinion )

You make the assumption that they knew as much as you did. I'm pretty sure that the licensing costs of VC-1 were discussed between Blu-Ray/HD-DVD associations and Microsoft et al. That doesn't mean they have to make public announcements about this.

[pwimmer]

So below 100000 sold units, the encoders/decoders are free. This is also true for H.264 (http://www.mpegla.com/avc/AVC_TermsSummary.pdf).

Astonishingly, the far more simple MPEG-2 decoder costs $2.5 per unit (http://www.mpegla.com/m2/m2web_licenseterms.ppt)

[bond]

ok after analysing the vc-1 and h.264 licensing costs: vc-1 is more expensive!

most licenses are identical, but the maximum fees possible are higher for vc-1

that said, why use vc-1 when h.264 is a better format and cheaper ;)

[zambelli]

ok after analysing the vc-1 and h.264 licensing costs: vc-1 is more expensive!
most licenses are identical, but the maximum fees possible are higher for vc-1
While the royalty caps for VC-1 start at a higher level than the respective H.264/AVC caps, the caps for both technologies are only relevant to very highest volume distributors. For example, H.264's codec cap for 2006 applies when over 25 million units are shipped. VC-1's codec cap for 2006 applies when over 40 million units are shipped. H.264's codec caps increase over time and will equal VC-1's codec caps in 2009. The participation fee caps for H.264 and VC-1 align in 2007.

On the other end, the cost of a VC-1 codec unit matches the H.264/AVC rate exactly.

that said, why use vc-1 when h.264 is a better format and cheaper ;)
That depends on your definition of "better". As discussed here (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=864209#post864209), it doesn't all boil down to "image A looks better than image B at the same bitrate". Overall cost, support, development potential, tools, etc - it all counts.

[bond]

hehe this one might explain the hddvd/bluray decision:

Royalties are payable for VC-1 products from January 1, 2006 forward. Under separate agreement, Microsoft will pay royalties for the period prior to January 1, 2006.m$ pays the royalties, but hey, only this year :D


The participation fee caps for H.264 and VC-1 align in 2007. sorry, but thats not true

in fact for example in the PC products field it says the following:
AVC: "The maximum annual royalty (“cap”) for an enterprise is $3.5 million per year in 2005-2006, $4.25 million per year in 2007-08 and $5 million per year in 2009-10."
VC-1: "Maximum annual royalty (“Cap”) payable by an enterprise: $8M per year: 2006-2010"

where do you see the 2007? where do you see that they align? where do you see the 25/40 million units figure you mentioned?

On the other end, the cost of a VC-1 codec unit matches the H.264/AVC rate exactly.yeah, in parts vc-1 and avc cost the same, which is already a small revolution for me, as i always thought that vc-1, being imho technically (only seeing the standard and not the rest you mentioned) worse then avc, would be cheaper

interpreting the licensing fees i would guess that some patent holders in both vc-1 and avc might want to harm vc-1 as they want to push avc

[GodofaGap]

interpreting the licensing fees i would guess that some patent holders in both vc-1 and avc might want to harm vc-1 as they want to push avc
Why would they want to do that? VC1 is a cashcow already since every HD-player will need to support it.

I don't see why the annual caps for integration in an OS is so important? Microsoft is not even allowed to bundle their OS with WMP in Europe, it isn't diificult to imagine what would happen if they intergrated a VC-1 decoder in their OS. :)

[pwimmer]

Microsoft is not even allowed to bundle their OS with WMP in Europe

Wrong. It's true they offer a Windows edition without WMP in Europe, but nobody ever bought it.

[pwimmer]

I wonder if HD-DVD player manufacturers actually have to pay license fees for both H.264 and VC-1. I assume most patents apply to both coding standards, so why should one pay twice for the same patents?

[GodofaGap]

Wrong. It's true they offer a Windows edition without WMP in Europe, but nobody ever bought it.

I'm sorry for my inaccurateness but I thought it would be clear to what I was aiming. MS was fined for several million dollars because they only offered Windows version with WMP (+other matters). If they now would provide VC-1 intergration into their OS, normally speaking a similar case could be held unless a VC-1 free version was also provided.

Now, I don't see why VC-1 decoding would need to be integrated in the OS, since just the decoder alone won't guarantee any kind of playback of anything and it would seem to be rather trivial to offer an decoder as separate download (which would circumvent the higher cap altogether).

[zambelli]

hehe this one might explain the hddvd/bluray decision:
m$ pays the royalties, but hey, only this year :D
You're misinterpreting that section. It's about Microsoft eating up the cost of VC-1 before it was approved as a SMPTE standard. How many HD-DVD and BluRay units do you know that shipped before January 1, 2006?

[zambelli]

Now, I don't see why VC-1 decoding would need to be integrated in the OS, since just the decoder alone won't guarantee any kind of playback of anything and it would seem to be rather trivial to offer an decoder as separate download (which would circumvent the higher cap altogether).
You're forgetting that WMV9 is Microsoft's implementation of VC-1. It's already in the OS (Main Profile out of the box, Advanced Profile from the web). Vista will most certainly ship with a fully compliant VC-1 decoder - because that's what WMV is.

[GodofaGap]

I'm not sure what "as part of an operating system" means. I find it an unclear term since Windows will work fine without WMP. IMO WMP (and the decoders) is software bundled with the OS, but perhaps this is what is intended in the first place. Heh, lawyer talk. :S

[bond]

You're misinterpreting that section. It's about Microsoft eating up the cost of VC-1 before it was approved as a SMPTE standard. How many HD-DVD and BluRay units do you know that shipped before January 1, 2006?hm i meant it in the sense that m$ propably told the hddvd/bluray organisations (and everyone else wanting to use vc-1/wmv!) that all they need to pay for vc-1 is what m$ charges (which was obviously not much). now it turns out this is only valid till the end of this year, which i guess not many thought about

[GodofaGap]

Microsoft won't pay anything this year. It says 'prior to 2006', and as far as I am aware we are already in august 2006. :)

[bond]

ups indeed ;)