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."

15 of 247 comments (clear)

  1. About time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Good luck guys, may the force be with you.

    1. Re:About time. by DavidR1991 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed. MPEG-LA is a glorified protection racket - any corp. brave enough to take a stand against it (and the myriad of other companies it 'shields') is worth standing behind

    2. Re:About time. by yincrash · · Score: 5, Informative

      FTFA, Nero claims that MPEG-LA has not abided by the license and changed it's policies against what there was previously written agreement of.

    3. Re:About time. by msclrhd · · Score: 5, Informative

      FTFA, Nero got a license from MPEG-LA saying that they didn't have to pay license fees for trial software. Now, MPEG-LA has changed their minds and has demanded payment retroactively for all the free trials Nero has provided before the change.

  2. I didn't know Nero AG had time for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    They seemed so busy turning their superior burning tool into another bloated intrusive dog.

  3. Re:MPEG_LA Isn't the devil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    MPEG_LA's official stance is that nobody can create a codec for compressed video of any sort without violating at least one of their patents.

  4. Re:MPEG_LA Isn't the devil by MBGMorden · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Any non-zero fee is bad for free (as in beer, and as in speech) software. When you have no price you're charging, then you can't really add in any fee on top of your price.

    It basically means that if you want to distribute software, you have to implement a means to SELL it. If you goal is to distribute software free of charge, then even a $0.01 licensing fee totally cripples that.

    A better solution for "free as in beer" software would be to make the fee a percentage of the sale price, though that still is somewhat problematic from the "free as in speech" angle.

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  5. Re:MPEG_LA Isn't the devil by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem is principle, even if I use totally clean-room reverse-engineering without even taking one look at their patents, I still am guilty of patent violations, how?

    Not to mention their patents become so broad that if you want to create your own compressed video standard you still have to license it out.

    Really, they should license certain software for $2 and if you use clean-room reverse engineering, you should be perfectly entitled to distribute and use it. And if you make a different standard, you should be able to distribute and use that without fear of patent lawsuits.

    Any company that does not make use of their patent "portfolio" to advance art and sciences is an abuser of patent laws plain and simple.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  6. Re:MPEG_LA Isn't the devil by forkazoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Although I disagree with most of what that company does, their MPEG licensing fee is on the order of $2 per manufactured device to use their technology. This isn't really extortion. HDMI is 4 cents per device, but you're required to maintain a $10,000 license fee on top of that. I think gross abuse would be more on the order of $50/device.

    If Vinny and Guido show up at your business with a baseball bat and remark that you have really unbroken knees, and it would be a shame if anything happened to them, it doesn't really matter if they demand $2 or $50. Once they show up at your business, willing to make threats about how they need a cut of the sales of a business that they may not have contributed anything to, they have gone too far. MPEG-LA are, at this point, basically operating under exactly the same business model as Mafia running a protection racket. They just invested enough in politics to make their game somehow legal.

  7. Re:MPEG_LA Isn't the devil by DrSkwid · · Score: 5, Informative

    You might think differently if you got the manual your $8000 Pro HD camera out and read the manual

    http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=584693&l=d37e6ecc2a&id=1429834573

    and then once you got that sorted out you read the manual to your $999 copy of Final Cut Pro

    http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=584692&l=a8a46fa560&id=1429834573

    MPEG-LA is a virus

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  8. 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 AK+Marc · · Score: 5, Informative

      The supreme court just ruled today that the NFL can't license the team trademarks collectively.

      No. They ruled that the Sherman Antitrust Act would apply for collective licenses. They could still collectively license trademarks without a problem. The specific issue was that the NFL argued they didn't need to worry about antitrust issues while issuing an exclusive collective contract. They may still be able to do exactly what they've already done, and there was no ruling banning collective licensing at all (and nothing that could even be construed to hold back any collective agreement of any kind).

      But if you have a collection of competitors agreeing to to work together, antitrust issues apply. It may have some impact on this case if it's found that the cross licensing is an antitrust issue, but there's nothing that would prevent any group from collective licenses (presuming other laws not examined in this ruling aren't broken).

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    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!

  9. 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.

  10. Re:HOLY SHIT. by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 5, Funny

    "My name is Khyber, and Nero's anti-trust complaint was my idea."

    --
    Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller