Codec licensing & royalties

[bilu]

Started this thread to discuss this subject, since an unrelated thread was being hijacked:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=425130#post425130

Please post your opinions over the various licensing schemes used by codecs.

Thank you.

Bilu

[bond]

i cleaned the thread up!

continue the discussion here if you want:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=68444

[bilu]

@bond

Discussion should continue on this thread. 3ivx, VP6, DivX, WMV9 and others also deserve to become part of the discussion, not just open-source MPEG-4 and Real Video. ANd this is a dedicated thread for the subject.

Bilu

[bond]

ok no problem, interesting subject (lets leave the other thread as its simply a mess) :)


to the topic:
i am pretty sure that m$, on2 and real use coding technologies in their audio/video codecs that are patented by other developers!

does anyone know if they pay licenses fees for using these tecs to the patent holders? or do they hide behind their closed specs, closed sources?


if they dont pay for the patents i think their behaviour isnt really legal
if they pay for the patents they suffer the same fate as mpeg-4 codec developers, which also have to pay to the patent holders pool


all-in-all thats all running behind the scenes from a costumers point of view, which means if a company pays licenses (or has to finance the development totally in their own firm not using other patents) it doesnt mean that this has an effect on what the customer has to pay (wmv9, rv9, divx5, 3ivx are all available for free and are not the only ones)

[bilu]

You're just saying that closed source is illegal until proved otherwise, right? :sly:

It looks like the open-source verssion of M$ FUD. Sheesh.

Bilu

[bond]

where did i say that?

[bilu]

Originally posted by bond
i am pretty sure that m$, on2 and real use coding technologies in their audio/video codecs that are patented by other developers!

does anyone know if they pay licenses fees for using these tecs to the patent holders? or do they hide behind their closed specs, closed sources?

if they dont pay for the patents i think their behaviour isnt really legal It looked like when open-source zealots say that closed source can hide patented technology without paying royalties or open source without respecting licenses just because you can't prove they don't since the source is closed.

If that wasn't what you meant then I'm sorry. :)

EDIT: But it's perfectly normal to have a company assembling free software and patents into a more useful software that will be selled. Profit means company survival, and assembling software has its own merit and deserves to be paid by interested users. Interest means the product is useful.

Bilu