"It seems to be primarily about the MPEG-LA deciding that Nero needs to pay H.264 License fees for "free trial" copies"
""Nero's complaint against the MPEG-LA is interesting. It seems to be primarily about the MPEG-LA deciding that Nero needs to pay H.264 license fees for "free trial" copies ... an interesting case study of the risks of murky license agreements. But there's a side antitrust issue.
They dug up a Department of Justice memo that OK'ed the formation of the MPEG-LA on the condition that the patents in the MPEG-2 pool were limited to "essential" ones by having an independent expert verify that the patents were essential.
The MPEG-LA chose as the independent expert their own co-founder and general counsel. Oops! Also, after telling the DoJ that 27 patents constituted "most" of the essential patents in the MPEG-2 pool, they proceeded to add 800 more. (The H.264 pool has even more.)""
Source of Post
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/05/nero_vs_mpegla.html
No comments:
Post a Comment