While Eugenia has already detailed just how intricate and impressive the MPEG-LA's efforts have been to basically set up the foundations that would allow them to sue just about everyone - their vague and unclear licenses are used in everything from DVD players to digital camcorders, and as such, it's hard to avoid them. Many others claim that the MPEG-LA won't ever go rogue (or this, take your pick). I think those people will be interested to know that one of the MPEG-LA's subsidiaries, a cut-and-clear patent troll, has launched several patent infringement suits earlier this year. This patent troll's CEO? Larry Horn - yes, the same Larry Horn who's also CEO of the MPEG-LA.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-06-29
Member since:2005-08-10
Member since:
2008-11-25
I hope that people can now see that MPEG-LA is pure evil.
Existing to 'license' things to people.... Sounds an awful lot like existing to charge people money for doing things they patented.
This kind of patent-trolling and blatant abuse of the system which was meant to improve innovation needs to stop.
I hope very strongly that google open-source VP8, that MPEG-LA sue them over some broad, all-enveloping patent, and that software patents are rendered null and void by a combination of that and Apple vs HTC.
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2009-02-19
Member since:2006-01-12
It was so real,
Like I woke up in Wonderland.
All sorta terrifying
I don't wanna be all alone
While I tell this story.
And can anyone tell me why
Y'all sound like Peanuts parents?
Will I ever be coming down?
This is so real
Finally, it's my lucky day
See, my heart is racing
'Cause this shit never happens to me
-Tool, Rosetta Stoned
This is how I feel nowdays visiting OSNews, it's like Area 51 with Coffee shop. Excuse while I put diapers and fix my tin foil hat.
Member since:
2010-03-25
What does the last line's crack about Flash video mean?
Flash video is mostly moving towards H.264, and anything that uses that codec via Flash faces the exact same issues.
To be precise Adobe are paying these guys already to distribute Flash, and if in 5 years they charge for web streaming it will apply regardless of if the video is watched via Flash or native in HTML5.
We've only been discussing this to death, you'd think we'd have mastered these subtle technical distinctions by now.
Plus, we shouldn't be annoying Adobe on this particular issue. By getting them to adopt VP8 (or if desperate using the already deployed VP6) they have the ability to decide this codec shenanigans in favour of royalty-free codecs if they want to. We'll need to serve something to the poor souls running IE6-8 and I'd rather not have multiple files if it's not necessary.
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2007-09-06
"serve something to the poor souls running IE6-8"
Why, not providing easy Youporn viewing will motivate them to upgrade to IE9.. MS has less IE6~8 to support and they push users forward to the current IE version (well, users that don't move to a better and more open browser).
Member since:2009-06-20
Member since:
2009-09-03
Member since:2005-12-02
Member since:
2010-01-01
Member since:2007-09-06
Member since:2005-06-29
What are you on about? Nobody - certainly not this article - is suggesting anything like that.
I think you really need to actually READ the article. It seems like to me you didn't read AT ALL.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Either the patents are valid or they are not. Isn't this what people want? Basically, the primary concern now with patents in general, and MPEG-LA, is that their patent holding are FUD, that they hold their claims and threats over folks heads and through muddled statements.
Rather than saying "You may be in violation, and will need to license this", they're finally pulling the trigger and trying to enforce the patents. Which means they need to, in court, qualify and clarify their patent claims.
Once that's done, other can more readily (potentially) work around their patents and achieve the same functionality.
I would expect that the patent-free codec folks would embrace a lawsuit, as that seems like the only way they can get traction as a safe alternative by surviving the process instead of living under a cloud of threats, FUD, "I say, He says".
At least they're going after folks who's legal departments are mere blips on their balance sheets compared to Joe the Hacker who would need to mortgage their life.
Member since:
2009-06-20
"Hi! I'm Larry Horn.
As said in this article, at MPEG-LA, we've always gone after anybody in need of a license, to offer them one, because we're nice like that.
Also, h264 is open, whereas Theora isn't free. It would be better for you to "goodthink different", like John Gruber does.
Also note that all iPhone apps will soon have to be coded in objective-newspeak, a new language which won't compile if your app contains porn or political cartoons (and some other undiscosed reasons - just remember: if it doesn't compile, it is crimecode).
Finally, by the end of 2016, MPEG-LA will rename itself the ministry of love-LA. We are currently training our agents on the model of the ones who investigated the stolen iPhone case."
Edited 2010-05-06 18:05 UTC
Member since:
2005-10-17
Thom, you are starting to sound like Stallman.
Member since:1997-10-01
Member since:2005-06-29
Well, I restrict my freedom nonsense to the web, where it belongs. I strongly believe that the web should be accessible by anyone, with whatever device they choose, no matter how wealthy they are.
If that makes me sound like Stallman, then so be it. I'd rather be associated with a free and open web than with Apple and Microsoft anyway.
Member since:2009-06-20
http://benward.me/blog/understand-the-web
Even Gruber linked to it.
Member since:2005-10-17
Member since:2008-07-15
Member since:2006-10-01
Member since:2005-10-17
I did not say Stallman was crazy. I wanted to point out how the last paragraph from Thom resembled a bit Stallman's radical discourse.
I do know that Thom is not a radical, though; in fact, he seems to be a rather practical person, who uses Windows 7 to watch his favorite Hollywood shows.
Member since:
2007-05-12
Member since:2006-01-06
Member since:
2005-10-22
Member since:2005-11-10
Member since:
2005-07-06
The one thing I'd love to see is something along the lines of a law passed that if a technology becomes so critical to the economy that a small group can hold hostage millions due to patents - that the law would allow some sort of organisation to grab the patents and allow royalty free implementation of that given technology. That is about the only way one can see a balanced approach to software development, especially when one considers that h264 isn't just a CODEC, it is a major piece of technology that permeates ever part of a persons life; from online movies to cam corders, to applications, digital television, digital music and so on. Something with such a large grip on the economy can be allowed to hold the whole economy to ransom because a noble intention has been screwed beyond belief into the current situation with patents.
Member since:
2010-03-08
-A patents is owned by all individuals who participated to its creation
-They can't transfer its property
-Once all of them have died, the patent is released in public domain and its ideas cannot be patented anymore
Problem solved. Why didn't we do this right the first time ?
Edited 2010-05-07 10:21 UTC
Member since:2005-06-29
Oh we did, just like copyright. It's just that once money gets involved, governments get involved. While either money or government involvement is no problem, both at the same time is an explosive mix.
Kind of like Martini and Amaretto, really.
Member since:2007-02-20
When you mix politics and money you get corruption.
Just look at the lobbyists, financial markets etc.
Greece is only the start, we haven't learned anything from the past 400 years, but that is "off topic".
Although, . . . why not kill patent trolls, they are evil and nonhuman! Probably aliens trying to disturb our world. Let do it the french way, chop of some heads.
Member since:
2005-07-23
