Web Video Rivalry Sparks U.S. Probe (WSJ)

Posted Mar 4, 2011 20:14 UTC (Fri) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020)
In reply to: Web Video Rivalry Sparks U.S. Probe (WSJ) by b7j0c
Parent article: Web Video Rivalry Sparks U.S. Probe (WSJ)

Wow, you're dreaming. I'd say the absolute best you can expect is for MPEG LA to get in trouble for antitrust violations.

Web Video Rivalry Sparks U.S. Probe (WSJ)

Posted Mar 5, 2011 19:36 UTC (Sat) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (5 responses)

I'm very surprised that DOJ is making any rustling noises at all. Google must have some good lobbyists or something.

It's not going to amount to anything, of course. The problems ultimately boil down to the patents and those are 100% legal.

Web Video Rivalry Sparks U.S. Probe (WSJ)

Posted Mar 5, 2011 22:23 UTC (Sat) by wblew (subscriber, #39088) [Link] (2 responses)

However, american antitrust laws are not about what is legal. They are about what is in the 'good of the american public'.

When it comes to anti-trust and the MPEG-LA, the legality of patents is irrelevant.

Web Video Rivalry Sparks U.S. Probe (WSJ)

Posted Mar 6, 2011 12:31 UTC (Sun) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (1 responses)

> However, american antitrust laws are not about what is legal. They are about what is in the 'good of the american public'.

lol. Yep and the 'Department of Defense' is about passively defending the borders of the USA.

> When it comes to anti-trust and the MPEG-LA, the legality of patents is irrelevant.

The point of patents is to create a monopoly. It's a bit dubious for the government to grant people patents and then go around complaining that they use them for their intended purposes.

All Mpeg-la has to do is tell the government that all they are doing is making it easier for people to pay for patents. From the patent system point of view by creating a patent pool on Vp8 they are actually facilitating the adoption of WebM, not hindering it.

Without the patent pool people would be forced to negotiate patents individually with each patent holder. This would be a huge burden on the adoption of Vp8.

Just because a bunch of software hippies and Google find it inconvenient to obey "USA Federal IP Law" is NOT going to help our case any.

The only way they could possibly get in trouble is by doing something like trying to charge more money for Vp8 then they do for H.264 for the same patents. I doubt they are that stupid.

Worst thing that could possibly happen (from MPEG-LA member's point of view) is that patent holders would have to create a different patent pool outside of MPEG-LA. Maybe call it 'WebM-LA' or something like that (nah, they would probably be a bit more creative on the naming.).

Web Video Rivalry Sparks U.S. Probe (WSJ)

Posted Mar 6, 2011 21:24 UTC (Sun) by gmaxwell (guest, #30048) [Link]

Er, you're ignoring the point that everyone understands: WebM is only interesting as a royalty free format. If it had per-unit/file licensing, even at 1/10th the price of H.264 it would still be mostly uninteresting. It's expressly described as such.

So the product that they're inhibiting isn't just a video format, but rather a royalty-free video format a kind of product which has just as much right to exist as any other, but one they are trying to extinguish from the market through various anti-competitive maneuvers including making misleading claims (e.g. they assert with confidence that vp8 is covered by patents, but fail to point out that they're talking about Google's patents which have been made available under a permissive license).

This is clear enough to everyone else that it shouldn't be hard to make it clear to the courts and policymakers.

So in no way is assembling a pool, unless it's a royalty free one, facilitating the adoption of WebM.

This isn't even a question of "software hippies" the developers of the software included in WebM very much want to obey the letter and spirit of the law here. It isn't our fault that various monied interest want to make it as difficult as possible to produce a lawful royalty free format.

I highly recommend this paper on the interaction between patents and standards http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1134000 for a reasonable and general overview of the situation.

Web Video Rivalry Sparks U.S. Probe (WSJ)

Posted Mar 7, 2011 6:38 UTC (Mon) by gdt (subscriber, #6284) [Link] (1 responses)

I'm very surprised that DOJ is making any rustling noises at all

The DoJ may well feel that MPEG-LA have consciously exceeded the limits of DoJ's Business Review Letter. In which case the DoJ, almost by definition, regards the exceeding behaviour as worthy of an anti-trust investigation.

Web Video Rivalry Sparks U.S. Probe (WSJ)

Posted Mar 7, 2011 6:51 UTC (Mon) by gdt (subscriber, #6284) [Link]

Found the Business Review Letter, for your viewing pleasure: Dear Mr Beeney...

Also, Nero AG's view of MPEG LA's compliance with the Letter: Nero AG's complaint for violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.