I don't understand what he's asking here. JavaFX apparently supported using local H.264 codecs on certain operating systems. Is that what got removed? Or is it the VP6 support that got removed?
On a related topic Oracle is listed as a WebM supporter on the website, which I assumed was related to JavaFX since I knew it used On2 VP6 for cross platform video, but I haven't seen any announcement about what they're actually planning.
"Basically MPEG LA did a very naughty thing. They added a metric ton of patents to their patent pool AFTER all the developers had signed up"
What is that supposed to mean? If a developer has signed up to license the MPEG-LA patents already, adding more to the pool isn't going to cost the developer any more.
Nero's complaint appears to be that the original MPEG-2 patents have expired and thus they shouldn't have to license anything, but since MPEG LA keeps adding patents to the pool they have to keep paying as long as these additional patents are valid. I don't see what that has to do with Java, though.
First, the MPEG-LA would engage with independent experts to ensure only essential patents would be placed in the MPEG-2 pool. They told the DOJ that the MPEG-2 pool constituted of 53 essential patents. Second, independent experts would "weed out nonessential patents" from the pool. Third, licensing terms would be "fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory".
Nero claims none of these safeguards were honoured, and here's where it gets juicy; "absolute power has corrupted the MPEG-LA absolutely", according to Nero. First of all, the so-called independent expert was anything but independent. The expert helped form the MPEG-LA, helped in drafting the first MPEG-LA licensing agreements, answers questions from licensees on behalf of the MPEG-LA, has attended business settlement meetings on behalf of the MPEG-LA, and has testified before US congress on behalf of the MPEG-LA. Heck, he is listed on the MPEG-LA website as "MPEG-LA's US patent counsel".
Nero also claims that the MPEG-LA has unlawfully extended its patent pools by adding non-essential patents to the MPEG-2 patent pool. Even though the MPEG-LA told the DOJ there were only 53 essential MPEG-2 patents, the non-independent expert added round and about 800 more patents to the pool, extending the duration of the patent pool, since the old, 53 essential patents expired....
Nero further claims that the MPEG-LA has "formulated and imposed licensing terms that are unfair, unreasonable, and discriminatory", by charging different royalty rates from licensees for the same MPEG-2 license and by not making any downward adjustment in line with the "rapid and dramatic" decrease in costs of implementing the MPEG-2 standard. In addition, the MPEG-LA collects royalties for the same device multiple times (internal hardware, software, monitor, etc.), and the licensing body has failed to "communicate its policies equally to all licensees".
6 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 24.1 ms ] threadOn a related topic Oracle is listed as a WebM supporter on the website, which I assumed was related to JavaFX since I knew it used On2 VP6 for cross platform video, but I haven't seen any announcement about what they're actually planning.
"Basically MPEG LA did a very naughty thing. They added a metric ton of patents to their patent pool AFTER all the developers had signed up"
What is that supposed to mean? If a developer has signed up to license the MPEG-LA patents already, adding more to the pool isn't going to cost the developer any more.
First, the MPEG-LA would engage with independent experts to ensure only essential patents would be placed in the MPEG-2 pool. They told the DOJ that the MPEG-2 pool constituted of 53 essential patents. Second, independent experts would "weed out nonessential patents" from the pool. Third, licensing terms would be "fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory".
Nero claims none of these safeguards were honoured, and here's where it gets juicy; "absolute power has corrupted the MPEG-LA absolutely", according to Nero. First of all, the so-called independent expert was anything but independent. The expert helped form the MPEG-LA, helped in drafting the first MPEG-LA licensing agreements, answers questions from licensees on behalf of the MPEG-LA, has attended business settlement meetings on behalf of the MPEG-LA, and has testified before US congress on behalf of the MPEG-LA. Heck, he is listed on the MPEG-LA website as "MPEG-LA's US patent counsel".
Nero also claims that the MPEG-LA has unlawfully extended its patent pools by adding non-essential patents to the MPEG-2 patent pool. Even though the MPEG-LA told the DOJ there were only 53 essential MPEG-2 patents, the non-independent expert added round and about 800 more patents to the pool, extending the duration of the patent pool, since the old, 53 essential patents expired....
Nero further claims that the MPEG-LA has "formulated and imposed licensing terms that are unfair, unreasonable, and discriminatory", by charging different royalty rates from licensees for the same MPEG-2 license and by not making any downward adjustment in line with the "rapid and dramatic" decrease in costs of implementing the MPEG-2 standard. In addition, the MPEG-LA collects royalties for the same device multiple times (internal hardware, software, monitor, etc.), and the licensing body has failed to "communicate its policies equally to all licensees".
Be fun to watch...