>Microsoft has shown its intent to drive out other open source software using overaggressive patent enforcement. The Microsoft dominated MPEG-LA consortium recently sent out a request for patents that would cover Google's VP8 video codec, and one company has already filed a private antitrust complaint against MPEG-LA for this behavior.3 MPEG-LA is a patent pool organized to collect and license patents on the H.264/MPEG video codec, a method of digitally encoding video files and decoding them for playback. Google is attempting to introduce its own codec, the VP8 codec, to compete with the MPEG codec. Once again, by seeking non-essential patents to assert offensively rather than defensively, Microsoft intends to drive out competition from open source developers.
Is MPEG-LA really dominated by MS in any sense of the word? Just curious.
MS seems to be actually paying them more for licenses in the end than what they get for a few patents they have in the pool. Not sure about Apple.
In any case, they're supporting VP8/WebM via user installed plugins in IE and have stated that they're not shipping it with the OS because they're afraid of patent trolls suing them for very high damages because they would be liable for hundreds of millions of Windows licenses.
Isn't the fact that their funding comes disproportionately from Microsoft (I'm just assuming you're right, obviously I don't have numbers) and argument for the MPEG-LA being "dominated" by Microsoft? They need MSFT more than it needs them.
>Isn't the fact that their funding comes disproportionately from Microsoft
I never stated that their revenue comes disproportionately from Microsoft. What I stated was that Microsoft pays them more than what Microsoft gets from it for Microsoft patents in the pool, which is a completely different thing.
I think there's a communication gap here. Let me try to explain with some made up numbers.
Lets say Microsoft pays the MPEG-LA $50 million/year and gets back $2 million/yr for their patents. So net payment to MPEG-LA is $48 mil/yr.
But MPEG-LA has a LOT of other licensees like Apple that licenses it for Quicktime, iMovie, all OS X and iOS devices, Google for YouTube, Adobe for Flash etc. etc. Lets say they all pay them $452 mil/yr. So total revenue of the MPEG-LA is $500mil/yr but Microsoft's share is not disproportionately large in that number.
I don't know about MS's share in MPEG-LA's revenues, all I stated was that they paid them more than what they got back in licenses.
Yeah, this is a communication issue. When I said "disproportionately", you apparently heard something like "predominately". But that's not what I meant.
The point is that MSFT might pay more into the MPEG-LA than it gets precisely so it can influence the MPEG-LA to take actions that are beneficial to Microsoft's other business interests. You are apparently trying to take that same fact and argue in the opposite direction, and I don't think the logic works that way.
>The point is that MSFT might pay more into the MPEG-LA than it gets precisely so it can influence the MPEG-LA to take actions that are beneficial to Microsoft's other business interests.
I don't see how it's Microsoft's choice to pay more or less. The terms are pretty clear and the same for all.
I also don't see how paying more will allow it to have more influence on the MPEG-LA, they're more like a customer. That's a pretty torturous argument to make.
MPEG-LA needs to keep Microsoft as a customer. Your biggest customer often has more influence on your business model than your smallest customer. If Microsoft can show they are willing to make moves to no longer be a customer of MPEG-LA, MPEG-LA will make moves to show that Microsoft should continue to be a customer.
> Is MPEG-LA really dominated by MS in any sense of the word? Just curious.
I have no idea.
> MS seems to be actually paying them more for licenses in the end than what they get for a few patents they have in the pool. Not sure about Apple.
Microsoft pays more, but they get more out of it. The more entrenched H.264 is, the bigger the barrier to entry for competition. If your competition has to pay the royalties, and you want to compete against Microsoft, the competition is at a disadvantage by being forced to pay those royalties.
>Microsoft has shown its intent to drive out other open source software using overaggressive patent enforcement. The Microsoft dominated MPEG-LA consortium recently sent out a request for patents that would cover Google's VP8 video codec, and one company has already filed a private antitrust complaint against MPEG-LA for this behavior.3 MPEG-LA is a patent pool organized to collect and license patents on the H.264/MPEG video codec, a method of digitally encoding video files and decoding them for playback. Google is attempting to introduce its own codec, the VP8 codec, to compete with the MPEG codec. Once again, by seeking non-essential patents to assert offensively rather than defensively, Microsoft intends to drive out competition from open source developers.
Is MPEG-LA really dominated by MS in any sense of the word? Just curious.
MS seems to be actually paying them more for licenses in the end than what they get for a few patents they have in the pool. Not sure about Apple.
In any case, they're supporting VP8/WebM via user installed plugins in IE and have stated that they're not shipping it with the OS because they're afraid of patent trolls suing them for very high damages because they would be liable for hundreds of millions of Windows licenses.