Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 2nd Feb 2007 11:30 UTC, submitted by anonymous
Thread beginning with comment 208494
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
So, wouldn't it be best to have Microsoft licence their codecs under a non-discriminatory licence as to ensure that they don't price 'compatible implementations' out of the market?
I have no worries about Microsoft coming up with new technologies; superior technologies than the MPEG cartel, but what I would like to see is Microsoft make it superior than MPEG's licence; allow free opensource implementations not have to pay licences; those who use it in commercial products pay a token amount per unit shipped - a licence that helps opensource projects and is acceptable to ISV's.
Edited 2007-02-03 01:10




Member since:
2006-09-16
The MPEG cartel wants to have a monopoly over multimedia formats, and that's legal. If they succeed because they offer the best combination of technology and license terms, that's fine.
Microsoft wants the same thing, and is free to compete for it on the same terms. But there's a catch.
Microsoft controls the dominant desktop, to the point where they have monopoly power. That's legal. But they can't use control of the desktop to gain control over new monopolies.
Monopolies aren't illegal. Abuse of the power of a monopoly is. The MPEG cartel didn't use some other monopoly to make their formats popular. They competed.
My agenda is to counter abuse of power, and abuse of monopoly power in particular. Microsoft has a lot of power, and a history of abusing it. I'm not anti-Microsoft, I'm anti-abuse. I'm opposed to certain actions by Microsoft or any other company. I give Microsoft credit where credit is deserved, and scorn where scorn is deserved.