MPEG 4 in trouble?

B

bystander

Regular
Just read this. AT&T are claiming anyone using the MPEG 4 standard is infringing on their IP.

In a report released yesterday, PC Magazine revealed it had learned that in December 2005, legal representatives of the new AT&T Inc. sent letters to several companies that utilize video encoding standards, including Apple, DivX, Nero, and Sonic Solutions, warning them that their use of the MPEG-4 codec may be infringing on its intellectual property rights.
Click to expand...

What is everyone's thoughts on this?
 
I never even heard of AT&T having a codec or patent in this area. This part sums things up pretty well:

MPEG-4 is part of a standard that already has a patent licensing body, that tries to round up all of the associated patents, with agreements to license them at reasonable and non-discriminatory rates (in other words, open to everyone who pays the rate). AT&T chose to stay out of that -- which, again, is their choice. However, it's becoming all too common for companies to do this. They believe they have patents related to standards, and then sit out until the standard has become adopted -- and then swoop in and try to start charging everyone. All this does is make the process of standardization much more difficult.
Click to expand...

Fuck Ma'Bell!
 
Sounds just like RAMBUS...

Though, I don't think them Ma Bells have anything to do with AT&T nowadays though...

Somehow there should be something to prevent such incidents...

Doesn't all this make the "standards" lose their standard appeal? Maybe you will be better off using a proprietary format. That way the format owner is the one who has to take care of such liabilities, and most proprietary formats are technically superior to open standards anyway. Of course, interoperability and vendor lock-in issues are there but now it seems to be a fair trade off.
Click to expand...

Sometimes I wonder how people come up with such silly statements like that...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
They believe they have patents related to standards, and then sit out until the standard has become adopted -- and then swoop in and try to start charging everyone. All this does is make the process of standardization much more difficult.
Click to expand...
Don't you have to actively enforce protection of your IP in order for you not to lose it? I seem to recall Kleenex, Barbie, and Aspirin being some examples (not sure), though maybe those cases were only related to names.
 
Mintmaster said:
Don't you have to actively enforce protection of your IP in order for you not to lose it? I seem to recall Kleenex, Barbie, and Aspirin being some examples (not sure), though maybe those cases were only related to names.
Click to expand...
Depends how good your lawyers are :p which I'm sure AT&T have its probably cheaper to simply pay up. Just look at carmack and creative of course their was prior art since it was posted on the creative forums but unfortunatly its expensive and time consuming ( which means alot more money if their are injuctions ).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mintmaster said:
Don't you have to actively enforce protection of your IP in order for you not to lose it?
Click to expand...
No. The examples you mention are all trademarks, which is something else (and treated different by US law).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
IBM backstabbing sony and neglected Apple ? (long read)
5 6 7
Replies
126
Views
46K
Fox5
F
Back
Top