Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nero Files Antitrust Complaint Against MPEG-LA

Posted by Soulskill on from the hot-topics-getting-hotter dept.

hkmwbz writes "German technology company Nero AG has filed an antitrust complaint against the MPEG-LA, the company that manages the H.264 patent pool. Nero claims that the MPEG-LA has violated the law and achieved and abused 100% market share, by, among other things, using 'independent experts' that weren't independent after all, not weeding out non-essential patents from the pool (in fact, it has grown from the original 53 to more than 1,000), and retroactively changing previously-agreed-on license terms."

12 of 247 comments (clear)

  1. Re:About time. by DavidR1991 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That said:

    "According to the MPEG-LA, Nero's case is nothing special. "I think we're looking it as a typical response by a company that has not abided by the terms of the license they've taken,"

    Have Nero not abided by their licence deals? Or are MPEG-LA going to paint it this way to try and throw the case out as a tit-for-tat?

  2. Re:MPEG_LA Isn't the devil by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    No they wouldn't be pointless, they would be useful to promote the progress of the sciences and useful arts.

    Think about it this way, there are a number of ways to create an image, you can use ink, CRT, LCD, LED, etc. but with patents like the patent pool that MPEG-LA has, they have a patent for a "technology to display an image" with the result of being an etch-a-sketch, if I want to make a CRT, I still have to pay them money because it is "technology to display an image" despite me not even using their technology at all.

    So unless I feel like paying extortion money, the technology lags behind because patents are preventing me from creating "technology to display an image" even if I want to do it in a radically different way.

    Not to mention that half the time it isn't the people who would have created the etch-a-sketch technology but rather a business out in Texas or someplace which does nothing to do with display technology and they only target me once I'm making money with my CRT monitors.

    Granted, this is a terrible example, but when you look at software patents and such, they are effectively cornering the market with an "etch-a-sketch" because a CRT or LCD would violate the "technology to display an image" patent.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  3. The supreme court would say MPeg LA is illegal by gr8_phk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The supreme court just ruled today that the NFL can't license the team trademarks collectively. It seems to me this should extend to any collective pool of IP - including patents. Each patent holder should have to license their patents individually.

    1. Re:The supreme court would say MPeg LA is illegal by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It seems to me this should extend to any collective pool of IP - including patents.

      Possibly, it depends on how broad the SCOTUS ruling was. The laws for trademarks and the laws for patents are very different, and each are different from the laws for copyrights.

      We'll have to wait and see, but it definitely sounds like this case could be used for a strong argument in Nero's case.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    2. Re:The supreme court would say MPeg LA is illegal by Teancum · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The problem is the exclusive nature of the agreements signed by the various parties, where those joining the pool are barred by contract from joining another licensing pool. That is significant and may apply to the NFL as well if there were to be a team that would want to independently license its logos and mascots or team uniforms under a separate licensing agreement.

      It is this exclusive arrangement that is at the heart of the MPEG-LA lawsuit by Nero. The major media companies and consumer media equipment manufacturers certainly have been engaging in acts for some time that locks potential competitors out of the market for some time.

      It is good that this regime is being called on the carpet and being called exactly what it should be: A trust in the classic sense like the rail barons of a previous century were doing that caused the anti-trust legislation to be enacted in the first place. It is about bloody time!

  4. Re:MPEG_LA Isn't the devil by JAlexoi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That is the whole problem, because patents were not intended to be applied to users of said invention, but only to protect the inventor against copycats.

  5. That's just what Microsoft did to Spyglass by Rob+Y. · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When Microsoft bought the spyglass browser and turned it into IE, they agreed to pay spyglass a percentage of the sale price. Ultimately, they made the sale price $.00, wiping out spyglass's revenue stream in a classic MS double-cross.

    I don't know why Spyglass never sued. IE was made a part of Windows, which was definitely not free. Sure, they made IE available as a free download, but they also included it on every Windows CD. Maybe there was a quiet suit and settlement?

    --
    Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    1. Re:That's just what Microsoft did to Spyglass by Fnkmaster · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They did sue. The settlement, however, was for a pathetic $8M according to this source.

  6. Re:I didn't know Nero AG had time for this by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You can even keep a copy of it on a thumbdrive and run it from there without installing:
    PortableApps Version

    Also not affiliated with the project or the portable apps folks, just like both.

    --
    Necessity is the mother of invention.
    Laziness is the father.
  7. Re:About time. by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Not to mention thanks to software patents being broad to the point of insanity it is pretty much impossible for anyone doing video compression of ANY software to not trip over an MPEG-LA patent mine. If the MPEG-LA patent pool is upheld it will hold the entire Internet hostage, as to do pretty much anything with AV one with have to pay the MPEG-LA "toll". Hell they even claim patents on part of the firewire spec, it is just nuts!

    So here's to Nero, may they kick some serious MPEG-LA ass. and for the "corporation Yay!" trolls that usually scream when anyone dares to risk corporation profits and scream "nobody will innovate!" there is a BIG difference between real hardware patents and the mess that is software patents. And with the major corps forming a cartel via MPEG-LA they have made a barrier to entry in AV that only corps with seriously deep pockets can afford to traverse, which is the exact opposite of the original purpose of patents, which were to keep the little guy from being crushed like a bug by big corps that could steal their ideas and beat them on price.

    As we have seen with some of the crazy things being patented by big corps like Amazon, IBM, and MSFT, such as the wave of "...on the Internet!" patents we had a few years back, software patents have become WMDs in the software world, with cartels like MPEG-LA and patent warchests making anything truly innovative in the field simply too expensive for anyone but the fortune 500.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  8. Re:MPEG_LA Isn't the devil by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And how do they do that? With a limited monopoly on the idea, not the implementation. It's the exact opposite coverage of copyright, which grants a limited monopoly on the expression but not the idea. Trademarks is a monopoly over a name under certain conditions.

    And what are the points of those?

    In the US constitution, patents are secured to "promote the sciences and useful arts", trademarks are used to protect consumers. The point of patents was to prevent guilds and companies from monopolizing knowledge by providing an incentive for them to release it to the public. Trademarks are useful because they let people understand what they are getting: if I want a Nintendo Wii and the package says Nintendo Wii, I should be getting a Nintendo Wii, not http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadgetmobile.com/media/2007/12/vii-2-white.jpg , trademarks are useful.

    What patents are today, are not what patents were when they were first designed. They were to add to the public knowledge and let people do great things with it as building blocks. Today though? We have the internet, we have communication, etc. We need to seriously consider if patents are even worth it today because they fulfill none of the constitutional requirements and don't benefit the original idea of patents.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  9. Re:About time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    > The answer is FIX the system. Now.

    The answer is to delete the system. Completely. End the patent system.

    http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm