Microsoft Tries to Open Windows Media 9

[Animaniac]

Orgininally posted by Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=technologyNews&storyID=3408925)

Microsoft Open Up Video Standard for Review
Mon September 8, 2003 11:01 PM ET
SEATTLE (Reuters) - Microsoft Corp. MSFT.O said on Monday that it will open the specifications for its video compression technology, which would allow other companies to make products based on its technology.
The world's largest software maker, which launched its latest video and audio standard, Windows Media 9 series, in January, said it submitted the standard to the society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers on Monday for review.

Acceptance by the international standards body would allow Microsoft's Windows Media 9 to be more easily adopted by other companies since the specifications would be open for all to see.

"We really wanted to think of a way for companies to use Windows Media 9 without ever having to contact Microsoft," said Jonathan Usher, Director of Microsoft's Windows digital media division.

Redmond, Washington-based Microsoft competes with RealNetworks Inc. RNWK.O and Apple Computer Inc.'s AAPL.O QuickTime format in the market for video compression and streaming software.

With open standards, other software companies could create applications that use Microsoft's video-encoding technology, although they would have to pay a license fee, which Usher said would be "low-cost and straightforward."

Hardware makers could create digital video cameras that use the technology, for example, he said.

The SMPTE will consider the standard when they meet next week, kicking off a process that could last 6-12 months, Usher said.

"I am optimistic (the standard will be accepted), I think this is technology that has been proven in the industry," Usher said.

[MfA]

Cute. It will be interesting to have an alternative open standard with performance close to H264, if they can manage that, especially since it seems WM9 is substantially less complex. Also I tend to agree with that m$ guy who posted here a couple of times a while back on loop filtering.

I wonder what the major IP holders will make of this though ... everything worthwhile is patented, more than once. In collobarative standards there is a reason to cooperate, because everyone can have a piece of the pie when the standard becomes a success. They have no stake in the success of WM9.

[temporance]

Originally posted by MfA
Cute. It will be interesting to have an alternative open standard with performance close to H264, if they can manage that, especially since it seems WM9 is substantially less complex. Also I tend to agree with that m$ guy who posted here a couple of times a while back on loop filtering.Yes, it will be great to be able to take a look "under-the-hood" of WMV9. But performance close to H.264? In my tests, the WMV9 encoder is only sometimes better than MPEG-4 ASP as implemented by xvid/divx. What would be interesting to see is whether they allow an open-source WMV9 implementation. Would coders really invest time in this if they know that M$ could decide to shut down their project at any time?

I wonder what the major IP holders will make of this though ... everything worthwhile is patented, more than once. In collobarative standards there is a reason to cooperate, because everyone can have a piece of the pie when the standard becomes a success. They have no stake in the success of WM9. Yes, IP was one of my first thoughts. M$ has been keeping this spec very close to its chest - I know people working on WM9 products (not at M$) and they had to sign their lives away before being allowed to look at the WM9 spec and source code. So to now go "open" is a big change of strategy for M$.

It wouldn't surprise me if they have not fully considered the IP implications: some marketing guy in MS may just have said "We're not doing very well against xvid/divx/real, let's make wm9 an open standard". Anyone with patents in video compression will be sure to examine WM9 in great detail, hoping for $$$ from m$.

[temporance]

I'm surprised this hasn't been picked up by slashdot (yet).

[Gaia]

What would be interesting to see is whether they allow an open-source WMV9 implementation.

No you will never see legal open-source WMV9 implementation. I am 100% sure Microsoft will sue you if you make one.

This is nothing more than "clever" marketing plan. They are just trying to get new customers.

[Joe Fenton]

Microsoft Corp. MSFT.O said on Monday that it will open the specifications for its video compression technology, which would allow other companies to make products based on its technology.

I think some folks here missed the key part of the above: open the specifications. They are not going "open source," merely making the specifications open so that the codec may be used directly, bypassing the Direct Show layer.

[MfA]

They mean the standard specification, not the interface specification ... it wouldnt take 6-12 months to ratify that :) Not source code, but enough information to code it yourself.

[Joe Fenton]

Ah, I see. Like the MPEG1/2 specifications. Not the code, but the bitstream. There could be some patent issues there. Part of it depends on if the specs also describe a way of encoding or decoding the bitstream. That's where most codec patents come into play.

[JJ]

Isn't WMV just essentially MPEG-4 with a few new features? At least WMV8 was pretty similar to MPEG, I wonder if this has changed in the new version.
AFAIK MPEG patent holders sign statements to license them under "reasonable and non-discriminatory terms". Does anybody know if this applies only to MP4-compliant codecs or to any program that uses technology covered by these patents? In the latter case IP wouldn't be a big problem - software developers would have to buy a license from the MPEG LA and maybe from Microsoft if they have patented some of the new features.
Regarding an open-source encoder/decoder: why not, it the same situation as with XViD. FFMPEG already has support for decoding WMV7/8, I hope 9 will follow soon.

[Ramirez]

One of the M$ rep's (forgot he's nic) stated a while ago that WMV9 codec was created from scratch and it's NOT based on mpeg-4 specifications, dunno how truthful this claim is because judging by the artifacts I'd say it's might be partially based on mpeg-4 (have anyone noticed how similar wmv9 videos and the best of the SBC rips looks like?)

As for the open source WMV9 encoder.. IMO that's not going to happen.. never

[dillee1]

Open source != Open patent

MS will nvr go the GPL way. WV9 algorithm is heavily patented(not just copyrighted).

You will need MS's permission to develope any WV9 based implementation.

Will MS ever allow ppl to use their patent for free??:sly:

[kastro68]

Reading the topic, I thought one of the M$ representatives got bluescreened when trying to open a WMV9 for a presentation.

It reminded me of the time Bill Gates got Bluescreened while trying to show off his Windoes OS to the world.

[shlezman]

Opening the standard means that the specifications are open, just like Joe Fenton posted, anyone will be able to devop his own codec. But using it for commercial purposes can be done only by paying M$ their pound of flesh :devil:

The problem M$ is facing is that no one wants to use it's codec, because it theirs. So they think that by making it "open" will encourage companies to use it and they'll make their cut. But I cant believe that any company in the video field will use M$ anyway because the alternative is H.264 which is better and already under heavy deveopment process in major companies. It looks like M$ missed their train and is trying to catch the bus so they wont miss the wedding :)

The funny part is that M$ holds many patents in H.264 and will make money out of it anyway, but not as much as from WMV9.

[temporance]

Originally posted by shlezman
Opening the standard means that the specifications are open, just like Joe Fenton posted, anyone will be able to devop his own codec. But using it for commercial purposes can be done only by paying M$ their pound of flesh :devil:Who says they'll only charge for commercial purposes? M$ would still have the right to charge people who use "GPL-WM9" for archiving TV shows at home, for example.

But I cant believe that any company in the video field will use M$ anyway because the alternative is H.264 which is better and already under heavy deveopment process in major companies.IMHO, today the alternative is MPEG-4 which performs at least as well as WMV9 in 99% of cases (my experience). MPEG-4 is making a much bigger impact in consumer devices than WMV9 could ever hope to, even now it will be "open".

Of course, by the time WM9 is a ratified standard, MPEG-4 will be mature and established. By that time, H.264 will come up against the big challenges of complexity (of the standard and of the hardware needed to build a decoder).

The funny part is that M$ holds many patents in H.264 and will make money out of it anyway, but not as much as from WMV9. For me, the funny part is that other companies almost certainly hold many patents in WMV9. While WMV9 was closed, these companies had no way of knowing whether M$ was using their technology. But now it's going to be open, we could see some interesting law suits.

[JJ]

For me, the funny part is that other companies almost certainly hold many patents in WMV9. While WMV9 was closed, these companies had no way of knowing whether M$ was using their technology. But now it's going to be open, we could see some interesting law suits. [/B]
I'm not sure about it. MS might have cross-licensing agreements with other major patent holders.

On2 developed VP3 - a codec very similar to MPEG-4 - which didn't use any technology patented by other companies. Also Vorbis is very similar to mp3 and other MDCT-based audio codecs, but it's free of patents. So it seems possible to create a high quality patent-free codec, especially with the manpower of Microsoft.

[temporance]

Originally posted by JJ
On2 developed VP3 - a codec very similar to MPEG-4 - which didn't use any technology patented by other companies. Also Vorbis is very similar to mp3 and other MDCT-based audio codecs, but it's free of patents. So it seems possible to create a high quality patent-free codec, especially with the manpower of Microsoft. I don't believe any of the examples you mention are 100% guaranteed free from patents. There are some very broad, basic patents applicable to most compression schemes that are very difficult to avoid. It all comes down to interpretation of the patent. And to get the court's interpretation of a patent to go your way you have to hire very expensive lawyers.

Btw, I agree about cross-licensing, but even M$ might have missed a patent. Just one patent from an uncooperative inventor is enough to be crippling for them.

[rjamorim]

Originally posted by JJ
AFAIK MPEG patent holders sign statements to license them under "reasonable and non-discriminatory terms". Does anybody know if this applies only to MP4-compliant codecs or to any program that uses technology covered by these patents?

This applies only to ISO-compliant applications.
If your application isn't ISO compliant, they can charge whatever they want to license you the technology or not license it at all.

In the latter case IP wouldn't be a big problem - software developers would have to buy a license from the MPEG LA and maybe from Microsoft if they have patented some of the new features.

The MPEGla only issues licenses to ISO compliant applications. If your application isn't ISO compliant, you have to license the technologies directly from the patent holders.

Since WMV definitely isn't ISO compliant, you can't rely on MPEGla.

Regards;

Roberto.

[deXtoRious]

I'm sorry to break your discussion, but could you please move on to discuss the technical possibilities instead of wasting time discussing boring and irrelevant patent issues? :angry:

[MfA]

No.

[deXtoRious]

Well, I thought this was a video forum, not a law school or smth. :(
Apparently I was wrong. Could you at least explain why?

[MfA]

If you want to change the flow of a thread provide something interesting to talk about in it, the discussion was on topic and we are not here to entertain you.

[Animaniac]

More on the same (nothing really new)
http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-5075335.html?tag=fd_lede1_hed

[deXtoRious]

If you want to change the flow of a thread provide something interesting to talk about in it, the discussion was on topic and we are not here to entertain you.

I wasn't talking about entertainment, I just couldn't understand the point of your non-video discussion...
Anyway, is MoneySoft going to release the source or just the standarts?

[Animaniac]

Originally posted by deXtoRious
I wasn't talking about entertainment, I just couldn't understand the point of your non-video discussion...
Anyway, is MoneySoft going to release the source or just the standarts?

Instead of trolling the discussion in this thread, read it. If you weren't so busy bashing the thread you just might have found the answer in the thread... :rolleyes:

[deXtoRious]

OK, so of what use will these specifications be to us?

P.S. I wasn't "bashing the thread", I just couldn't catch the point of your discussion. And I still can't :(

[bond]

Originally posted by deXtoRious
OK, so of what use will these specifications be to us?anyone with enough skills can write his own wma/wmv codec...

[deXtoRious]

:)

[Joe Fenton]

Originally posted by deXtoRious
OK, so of what use will these specifications be to us?

P.S. I wasn't "bashing the thread", I just couldn't catch the point of your discussion. And I still can't :(

Well, if you print the specs on decent paper, you can use it to blow your nose, or maybe wipe your butt.
:D

[deXtoRious]

I can't wait to try! :D
When can I get them? :rolleyes:

[temporance]

The specs for WM9 are apparently on an ftp server at eng.smpte.org

But you need a SMPTE username and password. Anyone got these and want to share the spec? (assuming copyright doesn't preclude this activity of course!).

[deXtoRious]

Same question (without the copyright reminder of course :))