WME does not require a usage fee. Does it?

[trbarry]

Am I now on Microsoft's side on this? I just read the News.com artical MPEG-4 backers protest Microsoft license (http://news.com.com/2100-1023-980007.html?tag=fd_top).

I've wondered for awhile if the MPEG-LA would manage to shoot themselves in their collective feet with demands for various usage fees. They lightened up a bit on this after some protest but if you are using Xvid (or probably AVC) on a web site that collects advertising revenue then you could be liable in some cases for usage fees for any video downloaded, charged by the second.

Many folks are excluded and I think there is a one million dollar cap (oh, goody) but it is still something to worry about. And even the accounting requirements would be too onerous to want to hassle with.

Can anyone confirm there are no usage fees for material encoded in WME? I'm not running a commercial site anyway but this seems it would make a huge difference for many potential users.

I realize there are different annoying restrictions on Microsoft media, such as possible spyware and their lawyer's kneecapping of Virtualdub or possible NDA's on the dev kits. But will this possibly put them back into the game anyway?

- Tom

[temporance]

Rob Koenen, president of the MPEG-4 Industry Forum, said that competition in licensing fees in general is positive. But he pointed out that "Microsoft's licensing fees are for the use of technology and don't necessarily cover an indemnification, while MPEG LA's license covers patent rights and comes without technology."
I had wondered if MS had licensed any of the patents covered by the MPEG-4 license scheme. It's very likely that it needs to license several of the MPEG-4 patents for WMV9. Of course, a licensing deal could have been done behind closed doors. But I'm sure some pro-MPEG-4 companies would refuse to license their patents to MS. So no-one really knows what's happened......

Here's a scenario: someone reverse-engineers the WMV9 codec and writes an open-source implementation. With the code in the open, a patent holding company could find what it thinks is an infringement of its patent. Then either the brown stuff hits the fan or big money changes hands somewhere.

This whole WMV thing is really quite interesting:
Could WMV9 be better than DivX/xvid like MS claim (MPEG-4 ASP)???
What's the real-deal on MS's licensing???
Does WME have spyware/policeware/secret DRM???

[Tom Servo]

Does WME have spyware/policeware/secret DRM???

No.

[trbarry]

Rob Koenen, president of the MPEG-4 Industry Forum, said that competition in licensing fees in general is positive. But he pointed out that "Microsoft's licensing fees are for the use of technology and don't necessarily cover an indemnification, while MPEG LA's license covers patent rights and comes without technology."

I actually thought that part was kinda funny. I sounds like someone from the MPEG-4 group is saying that Microsoft didn't give any protection from being sued by the MPEG-4 group.

However even if WME contains hidden technology that turns out to look remarkably like what the MPEG-4 folks claim patents on I think it is M$'s lawyers and dollars that would be first defending it in the courts.

Say I had an interesting web site with some video downloads that somehow started making enough money to be considered collectable. Would I be contacted sooner by the MPEG-LA lawyers if those video's were MPEG-4 or if they were WME? ;)

I'm still mostly an Xvid fan, and not doing commercial enterprises anyway, but this has made even me reconsider a bit.

- Tom

[MfA]

Microsoft is a monopoly which is leveraging its ability to set defacto standards in yet another market.

In this case I cant be bothered about it though ... it used to be patents were of most benefit to the big boys, now a lot of them are forced to realise that the bar to be counted among the big boys has moved up.

Maybe they will realise patents hurt them more than help them in time, and help reform them. Unlikely though, but without effective (global) anti-trust laws that will mean most of them will fall. Companies like m$ neither have to suffer from design by committees who have other than technical matters on their minds, nor from year long battles for IP arrangements after ratification.

[amirm]

Answering Tom's question, we absolutely do NOT have any content fees. So you can encode at will with Windows Media and distribute any way you like.

As to Rob's comments, he didn't bother to read our licensing agreements which are online. If he had, he would have seen that we do indeed offer indemnification. Indeed, our terms closely mirror MPEG other than of course, the high cost and content/use fees.

Here is a good read on the topic: http://web.morons.org/article.jsp?sectionid=1&id=2708

Temporance, I am amazed at your comments. You have never seen WMV source code or are aware of the algorithms contained within. Yet this is the second time I see you accuse us of stepping on other people's patents. Saying things like "it's very likely that it needs to license several of the MPEG-4 patents for WMV9" takes all the objectiveness out of your posts. How could you say "very likely" when you have zero data on this???

But regardless, we have specific language in our contract to address the above. Again, a copy is available online for the world to see.



Amir

[temporance]

Originally posted by amirm
Temporance, I am amazed at your comments. You have never seen WMV source code or are aware of the algorithms contained within. Yet this is the second time I see you accuse us of stepping on other people's patents. Saying things like "it's very likely that it needs to license several of the MPEG-4 patents for WMV9" takes all the objectiveness out of your posts. How could you say "very likely" when you have zero data on this???I am not accusing, I am merely speculating that it would be virtually impossible to create something like WMV9 using only Microsoft IP as there are just so many video patents out there. Look at Ogg: they were not able to create a patent-free video codec having reasonable performance. Unlike Ogg though, your employer is very able to license IP from others, if they're willing. Anyway, I do have some data. I spend a lot of time with my nose against the screen, looping though compressed video frames. For example, I know that WMV9 is block-based because I can see the blocks. ;)
But regardless, we have specific language in our contract to address the above.Ah, OK, I see your lawyers have this covered, in a manner.

[ChristianHJW]

Well guys, about software patents there are a few things to be kept in mind :

1. The boys may patent in the US whatever they want, that doesnt mean other countries ( even European companies ) will give a dime about it. The 'block based' example is very good for this, lets suppose there is a US patent covering that ( to break down a picture into little squares and encode those instaed of the whole picture ) do you ever think if MPAA would bring the XviD project leaders ( most live in France and Germany ) to court they would get sued for breaking the patent ?? Laughable ... the German/French judge would send them home ! Please note that European court system works completely different than the US system .. money doesnt help you ( much ) ..
The USA may be an important market, but its still very small when being compared to the whole world, so there was absolutely no point in starting an expensive software patent violation trial if in the end only a small part of the world was affected by the outcome of that.

2. Most software patents these days are not made to be able to bring your competitor to court and charge him money for using your patent, but for a completely different reason, this is to make sure nobody else can ask you for money because you were using their patents, so the main motivation behind this is to be on the safe side. Most companies today are very well aware of the fact that their patents wouldnt hold in a real trial, and the process of finding out would be consuming both time and money, accompanied with the risk to loose the patent completely ( yes, thats possible, e.g. if the court finds out the patent itself was violating other existing patents or is derived from public domain work )... so simply no company will ever do that !

Just my 2 cents ..

[temporance]

I still think Rob Koenen has the most salient point:

Rob Koenen, president of the MPEG-4 Industry Forum, said that competition in licensing fees in general is positive. But he pointed out that "Microsoft's licensing fees are for the use of technology and don't necessarily cover an indemnification, while MPEG LA's license covers patent rights and comes without technology."He's saying that when you get a WMV encoder / decoder, Microsoft gives you rights to the software but not necessarily to any patents that may be required.

Agreed, patents are often used between companies as bargaining tokens. But in the case of video codecs, companies around the world have invested millions in development on the understanding that they'd recoup some of their investment from patent royalties e.g. via MPEG-LA.

BTW, ChristianHJW, your arguments about being safe in France/Germany don't take into account international trade agreements which give power to foreign patents. Also, what of the EPO? Anyway, this is all academic until a patent holder wants to pay millions to hire lawyers good enough to pursue such a claim. In practice you're safe unless a. you're making $$$$ millions or b. you're costing someone $$$$ millions in lost profit by your actions.

IANAL

[amirm]

Originally posted by temporance
I still think Rob Koenen has the most salient point:

He's saying that when you get a WMV encoder / decoder, Microsoft gives you rights to the software but not necessarily to any patents that may be required.
IANAL

This is incorrect. We license both our patents and source code.

Your assumption about MPEG is also false. MPEG-LA makes no assurance whatsoever that by paying them the fee, you are getting coverage of all the patents required. They will license you the patents that are in the patent pool only. It is up to you to find out if other patents are required! Indeed, some major patent holders in the past have decided to not join the pool. Others can come out of the woods any time and demand payment.

Patent pools for MPEG are creating by asking people to participate in them. But you are 100% free to not join. It is a totally voluntary program.

So that you know what we are talking about, we are one of the 14 patent holders in MPEG-4. So we may be knocking on other people's door not the other way around :).

Amir
Microsoft

[temporance]

Originally posted by amirm
We license both our patents and source code.
What about other people's patents that might apply?

Your assumption about MPEG is also false. MPEG-LA makes no assurance whatsoever that by paying them the fee, you are getting coverage of all the patents required. They will license you the patents that are in the patent pool only. It is up to you to find out if other patents are required! Indeed, some major patent holders in the past have decided to not join the pool. Others can come out of the woods any time and demand payment.
The minority of patent holders that witheld from MPEG-2's patent pool probably wish they had joined. In the pool, you have one entity that has connections with every user of the technology - a smaller slice of a big pie is bigger than a whole tiny pie.

Others can come out of the woods any time and demand payment.This sort of thing happens all the time and most such demands are completely baseless. Because in industry even competitors have complex interelationships, this sort of tactic rarely helps rogue patent holders.

So that you know what we are talking about, we are one of the 14 patent holders in MPEG-4. So we may be knocking on other people's door not the other way around :).AFAIK, you can't come knocking on the door of someone who's using compliant MPEG-4 under MPEG's licensing scheme. As a pool member, you've agreed that you'll get your royalties via the pool.

Patents are a pain, aren't they? Clever codec people should be able to spend all their time on the technology, not talking with lawyers. :)

[trbarry]

Patents are a pain, aren't they? Clever codec people should be able to spend all their time on the technology, not talking with lawyers.

Sadly, the MPEG-LA has convinced me that programmers should be aware of the existance of lawyers. I would bet that anyone that helped create MPEG4 or H26L (which I did not) would have a similar feeling by now. ;)

- Tom