Nero Files Antitrust Case Against MPEG-LA

[iwod]

http://www.osnews.com/story/23346/Nero_Files_Antitrust_Case_Against_MPEG-LA

If everything said inside the case is true, then finally we have an excuse to dismiss MPEG-LA, free those patents ( they have collected enough money from the industry already )

And finally free H.264.........

[Mixer73]

Juicy, if only Google would join the case so someone has deep enough pockets to fight them.

[Dark Shikari]

Check the claims in the lawsuit filing. If they're true, MPEG-LA is going to find themselves eating the dirt.

In short, the real kicker is that in order to be allowed their monopoly position, they made a set of promises to the US government back in the MPEG-2 days. Many of these were very specific: for example, that the 27 essential patents they claimed on MPEG-2 were "most of" the essential patents.

They then proceeded to add over 800 other supposedly "essential" patents to the pool over the next two decades to lengthen the patent licensing period, which should have already expired. "Most of" apparently now means "5% of".

Of course, this is just a small subset of the abuses they note. Read the whole thing; it's not particularly legalese-heavy.

And do keep in mind that even if MPEG-LA loses horribly, this isn't necessarily a good thing: the patents won't go away, since MPEG-LA aren't the actual owners of the patents, and it may become much harder to license them without a patent pool.

[Mixer73]

And do keep in mind that even if MPEG-LA loses horribly, this isn't necessarily a good thing: the patents won't go away, since MPEG-LA aren't the actual owners of the patents, and it may become much harder to license them without a patent pool.

Especially from a vendors perspective the patent pool is a VERY big time saver. I've spent more than 10 years dealing with licensing, and I spent 4 years as part of a company that was a party to the patent pool, and that provided a very big saving.

Especially when you look at the EULA with camcorders and such I believe MPEG-LA have been "overly generous" to themselves, and with this sort of loophole, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Nero could prove their case.

Of course, when you have lawyers like most companies defending valuable patents do, the facts no longer matter. It will be fought on minutae and don't be surprised if Nero lose.

[iwod]

Well, if MPEG-LA already collected trillions of dollars, they even some % of it is enough to cover up all the work of the patents owners. Adding to the fact the STEAL money from consumers for adding even more patents. Those patents should stand, by it should now be free under conditional uses. i.e The Web.

[wlee15]

Well, if MPEG-LA already collected trillions of dollars, they even some % of it is enough to cover up all the work of the patents owners. Adding to the fact the STEAL money from consumers for adding even more patents. Those patents should stand, by it should now be free under conditional uses. i.e The Web.

As DS mention the patents themselves are not owned by MPEG-LA but the licensors that have joined the patent pool. Even if MPEG-LA is broken up you would still have to deal with the individual patent holders.

[Mixer73]

As DS mention the patents themselves are not owned by MPEG-LA but the licensors that have joined the patent pool. Even if MPEG-LA is broken up you would still have to deal with the individual patent holders.

But you'd find you most likely will have a binding legal precedent, and depending on the findings, potential investigations of collusion.

Now THAT would be interesting.

[dstln]

I doubt anything will happen from this.

But even if it did (now would be as good a time as any to hit them with something like this), what's the best that could happen?

[Ghitulescu]

In Europe patenting software is not possible, in theory. However, if they prove a technical effect (in correlation with a hardware) they may have something. Quite opposite, the US SUpreme Court held in 1980 that everything that came out of a human mind, namely software and business methods, should be patentable.

The good thing is that a patent is valid for 20 years, starting from the deposit date. The bad thing is that they file also copyright and other IP related things the same time, so they get the full coverage. The other bad thing is that 20 years is a lot in computer/audio/video/media industry.

Normally a patent is a monopole, so "as such" it should be illegal under the antitrust laws, so the issue is how to assess the monopole problematic. Nero has a start, but the odds are against, unless Nero knows something we don't..

[2Bdecided]

I like this line: "The MPEG-LA stifles innovation". The evidence for that being, what, that MPEG-4 ASP isn't much better than MPEG-2? That MPEG-4 AVC is still no better than MPEG-2?! What would be unstifled innovation? Full HD at 250kbps?!

It might stifle innovation elsewhere, but in terms of getting people (including some rather rich companies) to work on improving video codecs and create open standards, it's been anything but stifling.

Of course extending the term by including patents filed after the standard was in-use is silly (you can't patent something that's already out there! Except in the US where you have a year to do so; invalid everywhere else); if this has happened, good for Nero for challenging it.

I fear it might just degenerate into a case where lawyers make a lot of money by arguing about the meaning of the word "reasonable". That argument can probably run for longer than the 20 year patent term!

Cheers,
David.

[Dark Shikari]

I like this line: "The MPEG-LA stifles innovation". The evidence for that being, what, that MPEG-4 ASP isn't much better than MPEG-2? That MPEG-4 AVC is still no better than MPEG-2?! What would be unstifled innovation? Full HD at 250kbps?!.I think they're referring to stifling innovation in business models -- which is true, whenever you charge X price for a royalty to use some tool, you may rule out some possible business models that could use that tool but are no longer possible due to the price. Higher prices rule out more business models.

[Ghitulescu]

I like this line: "The MPEG-LA stifles innovation". The evidence for that being, what, that MPEG-4 ASP isn't much better than MPEG-2? That MPEG-4 AVC is still no better than MPEG-2?! What would be unstifled innovation? Full HD at 250kbps?!

I think they're referring to stifling innovation in business models -- which is true, whenever you charge X price for a royalty to use some tool, you may rule out some possible business models that could use that tool but are no longer possible due to the price. Higher prices rule out more business models.

No, copyrights are historically known to stop innovation - actually this is the real reason of filing patents and enforcing copyrights.
The patents have generally broader claims than reasonably thought, have a look on some of them from the "patent pool", it may look harmlos but they block some strategic ways - summa summorum one has to pay lots of reasonably fees, you know, 500x 1cent is still 5$ per product. This is the point.

[2Bdecided]

No, copyrights are historically known to stop innovationFunny - I thought the first copyright laws were created to stop creators dying in poverty while pirates became wealthy from their work?

Well, not quite - they were to protect the public from unscrupulous booksellers...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

Anyway Ghitulescu, I remain unconvinced that all the research that brought us video coding (or pretty much anything else in the modern world) would have happened with patents and/or copyright. True, humans can't help but "invent", but something has to put bread on the table too.

Cheers,
David.

[Ghitulescu]

Funny - I thought the first copyright laws were created to stop creators dying in poverty while pirates became wealthy from their work?

Well, not quite - they were to protect the public from unscrupulous booksellers...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

Anyway Ghitulescu, I remain unconvinced that all the research that brought us video coding (or pretty much anything else in the modern world) would have happened with patents and/or copyright. True, humans can't help but "invent", but something has to put bread on the table too.

Cheers,
David.

That was 187x. Today the authors are not really so poor, however its extent was prolonged because some "poor" lobbyists felt insecure about their revenues after 95 years after their death.

And it's enough that you read the laws (and understand them), forget the common sense, it has nothing to do with. It's commonly called copyright act but in fact it'd be better a "no copy allowed" act (or the right to remain outside of a federal prison if you don't copy).
I don't know what law studies did you follow, I don't know if you ever wrote an article or a book, anyway, serious researchers in the field still have a problem in identifying the advantages that patenting and the copyright brought to the innovation. The problem is that they don't have an alternative, like one doesn't have an alternative to Christianity in Europe, you can only construe pure mental models (what-if).

Have you ever heard of patenting companies, you should if you're in the UK, as they flourish there and in the NL - they file patents then sell/licence them or block the manufacturing companies until they agree to licence. I'm not talking about patent departments, sometimes a separate firm within a trust (like Unilever has), but about the patent trolls.

I said it before, the whole problem lies in that the claims are usually much broader than the actual contribution.

[2Bdecided]

life + 95 years is hardly defensible.

but patents are 20 years.

and governments introduced patents to improve innovation.

I'm aware of patent trolls. IMO we need a better (and better defined) patent system, not no patent system.

Ditto copyrights - IIRC there was a study showing the optimum copyright term was about 13 years - not 95, but not 0.

Cheers,
David.

[Ghitulescu]

and governments introduced patents to improve innovation.
The patents were introduced because the companies argued that they could not innovate anything if they are not protected. Vice-versa.
I'm aware of patent trolls. IMO we need a better (and better defined) patent system, not no patent system.

Ditto copyrights - IIRC there was a study showing the optimum copyright term was about 13 years - not 95, but not 0.
:) :) :) :) :)

PS: Do you have that study, or remember anything about it to help me searching for it?

[2Bdecided]

The patents were introduced because the companies argued that they could not innovate anything if they are not protected. Vice-versa.I think the cynical reason, if you're going back to the dawn of patents, is that governments wanted to learn the secrets of private invention. A patent is a bribe to bring private information out into the public domain. The patent term is the amount of that bribe.

In answer to your other question, it was 14 years, and it's here...
http://www.rufuspollock.org/economics/papers/optimal_copyright.pdf
found via...
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/07/research-optimal-copyright-term-is-14-years.ars

Also this has some interesting comments and links...
http://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension

Cheers,
David.

[Ghitulescu]

I think the cynical reason, if you're going back to the dawn of patents, is that governments wanted to learn the secrets of private invention. A patent is a bribe to bring private information out into the public domain. The patent term is the amount of that bribe.

Since the beginning (the first patent ever in the modern sense, the Venice patent) there were some requirements (there are more):
- to be sufficiently disclosed (so to be carried out also by non-inventors)
- to be public (published)
- and, like other monopoles, to be subjected to an annual fee, as a fair contribution to the hinderness it causes

The state (monarch, despot, tyran) also has the power to invalidate a patent (it happened in the USA several times, mostly during the wars), because being so public it might help the enemy too..

I think you're referring to copyright - here you are not obliged to explain, just to publish, and you don't pay a single penny ... but get a lot...