Lists Home |
Date Index |
Dear Len, all,
I just wake up a bit to clarify the MPEG policy.
I joined the MPEG consortium 4 years ago for the development of MPEG-7. What
I found in MPEG is a bunch of geeks discussing highly technical issues,
design the best technical solution without willing to downgrade the solution
basis of hyptothetical patent encumberance. Be sure, that there are many
that can be applied on W3C standards, ASN-1 and others. MPEG is not worst
or better wrt to patents and it is clear wrt to royalties: It is up to
to decide their royalty policy but it should be _at least_ fair and
I discussed a lot with people at MPEG and contrary to what most people
believe, companies are really happy to see a royaltie free MPEG standard.
The JVT work has been developed in such a way together with ITU.
Let me give you my view on a W3C standardized binary format. Before MPEG
released its first version of an XML binary infoset (July 2001), the
adoption of XML was dangerously criticized by manufacturers because of its
efficiency flaws. They wanted to have a low CPU and low bandwidth solution.
In this context, BiM helped a lot the TV industry to have a flexible (XML)
solution without compromising the performance (BiM enhancement). The BiM has
been evaluated since then and a new version is expected for the end of the
year. It includes few new essential features that wouldn't have been
identified without the BiM V1. Now, this need pops up again within other
industries and several activities are trying either to adapt their legacy
technology or to design a new ad-hoc one. It is for me the best reason why
W3C should design its own standard for binary infosets before
interoperability is endangered by those late attempts, which most often
partially satisfy the industry requirements. It is up to BiM patent owners
to promote or not the technology within W3C, knowing that the W3C policy is
clear and strict and shall be followed.
Finally, be sure that you can read any MPEG standard and ascertain
infringement for free ! You will not be tainted that easily ;)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "'Robin Berjon'" <email@example.com>
Cc: "'Liam Quin'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 3:51 PM
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Patented XML Compression Techniques (WAS RE:
[xml-dev] Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?)
> Then, should the patent holders decide to
> work with the W3C or other organization to create a standard binary
> for XML, they will submit the patented materials as royalty-free
> That's fine.
> One other question: is it the case that review of the MPEG materials
> to ascertain any potential infringement obligates the reviewer
> to the terms and conditions of the patent holder? In other words,
> is tainting directly inferred by the review?
> From: Robin Berjon [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> > What if any impact will these patented techniques have
> > on the workshop outcomes other than to invoke the W3C IPR
> > policies wherever necessary?
> I'm unsure, do you mean will patents held on parts of MPEG-7 BiM be
> BiM? The decision is not up to me but I doubt it. If, however, as a
> of the workshop the W3C decides to pursue work in this area then obviously
> W3C rules will be followed.
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>