Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MPEG LA Announces Call For DASH Patents

Posted by Soulskill on from the grab-grab-grab dept.

An anonymous reader writes: The MPEG LA has announced a call for patents essential to the Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP (or DASH) standard. According to the MPEG LA's press release, "Market adoption of DASH technology standards has increased to the point where the market would benefit from the availability of a convenient nondiscriminatory, nonexclusive worldwide one-stop patent pool license." The newly formed MPEG-DASH patent pool's licensing program will allegedly offer the market "efficient access to this important technology."

66 comments

  1. Not Quite by doas777 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, what we need is an abolishment on Software Patents, so that armed thugs like the MPEGLA can't extort licensing fees from a developer because the code they wrote on their own happens to do something that is abstractly claimed in some random poor quality patent.

    1. Re:Not Quite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When you're essentially a law firm, it must be nice to codify wealth with the backing and approval of the government by force. Isn't it? It's literally like printing money after you create it!

    2. Re:Not Quite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to look at these "armed thugs", they're the popular global mega-corporations that make products that received exceptionally high coverage from paid shills, zealots and fashionestas. The same lot who also avoid playing due taxes via dodgy double-Irish, and Cayman Island empty office dodges.

      MPEGLA can be brought down in one cycle of products, less than one year. All it takes is for the licensees (who also received income and cross patent usage) is to tell them to fuck off and implement a shared open toolkit based on non-patent encumbered compression, then fab it up in their SoCs. But they won't. MPEGLA creates a barrier of entry to prevent upstarts upsetting the status quo.

    3. Re:Not Quite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd settle for a one-year patent limit for software. This way, if someone does have a novel idea, they can have a buffer before the rest pounce on it.

    4. Re:Not Quite by doas777 · · Score: 1

      One years protection is definitely an improvement, but its still philosophically antithetical to the reason for patents to exist in the first place. Copyright should be sufficient protection, to keep people from stealing your code, but Software Patents protect the very idea, regardless of the means used to obtain it, in a way that physical patents do not.

      Patents are designed to spur innovation by getting companies to share their secrets, so that a valuable portfolio of useful arts and sciences is built in the public domain (paraphrased from the Constitution Article 1). In return for sharing their secrets, the company is granted a limited exclusivity on the patented machine for a limited period of time designed such that the invention is still valuable after the exclusivity expires. Thats our first problem: Most software inventions are only good for about 5 years, which is less than copyright term. In that regard your proposal is spot on.

      The bigger problem is however, that a patent on a machine makes only reasonably abstract claims, and the construction of the device must be reasonably concrete, meaning that substantially changing the design of the machine produces a new non-infringing product, even if the two devices perform the same task. Software patents however, are very very abstract, such that any means anyone could ever develop to perform a task that someone has patented an approach to, despite using a dramatically different approach, or developed without knowledge of the existing patent, is supposedly infringing. This is starkly different from Copyright, in that you generally have to know you are making an action that might infringe a copyright, by consuming an existing artefact.

      Lastly, because Software Patents are so abstract (as opposed to patents on a physical machine or pharmaceutical) that when the exclusivity period is over, the secrets the inventor shared with the government are useless for further innovation in the public domain. This undercuts the entire purpose of Patents as described in the US Constitution, and only serves to promote anti-competitive practices for the companies profit.

      Ultimately, there is no fix, that can make software patents work, unless every method in the algorithm is stated in the patent, such that you can create non-infringing approaches to achieve the same goal, which do not infringe, and so that the invention has worth to the public domain after exclusivity expires.

    5. Re:Not Quite by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      For many software patents, I'd agree with you.

      The problem with video compression is that many of the patents involved do represent real research, the expensive kind. They aren't one-click shopping patents. They're fundamentally pushing forward the state of the art. The people who do that work are expensive and need a lot of time, so, there has to be some way to pay for their efforts. Google's approach of subsidising all research via search ads is perhaps not as robust as one might hope for, even though it's convenient at the moment.

      I don't know if DASH specifically is complex enough to deserve patent protection, but if you look at the massive efforts that go into the development of codecs like h.264, h.265 etc, the picture gets more complex. It's not pharmaceutical level research budgets but it's probably the closest the software world gets.

  2. Funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    I can't see the "world" seeing any benefit from this, MPEG LA on the other hand...

    Ah well. Everyone already knows how this is going to pan out, the community will come up with a solution not encumbered by patents and gravitate toward that instead, MPEG LA will continue to remain irrelevant.

  3. License-free provides the most efficient access by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The newly formed MPEG-DASH patent pool's licensing program will allegedly offer the market "efficient access to this important technology."

    This patenting places a burden on such access, the exact opposite of their declared purpose.

    Pure, unadulterated, greedy bastards.

    1. Re:License-free provides the most efficient access by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the patenting places a burden, the licensing requirements place a burden.

      MPEGLA is actually trying to lower the EXISTING burden by becoming a one stop shop for overcoming those burdens.

      That is, they want to be Denmark so you can pay your Dane-geld easily instead of having to track down 20 different Danes.

      It would be better to abolish the system entirely, but this is, I hate to say it, and improvement.

    2. Re:License-free provides the most efficient access by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you smoking?? Unless the evil "software patent", there is NO burden and hence no once has to track down something at all. That is not an improvement!

    3. Re:License-free provides the most efficient access by pedz · · Score: 1

      Pure, unadulterated, greedy bastards.

      Aren't they actually adulterated?

  4. In other words.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    QUICK... Our patents are running out. We need MORE suckers...

  5. How does the _market_ benefit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    from having to pay for things that can't by any stretch of imagination be called a genuine invention? These things are the natural progression of the Internet. You might as well try to patent the whole process of inventing things.

    1. Re:How does the _market_ benefit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you can patent the process of patenting.

    2. Re:How does the _market_ benefit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not even "progression", it's using things that other people invented, for the purpose of what those people invented it to do. Making a super narrow use-case out of that is neither novel nor an invention. For a non-internet version, it'd be like patenting using an adjustable-torque screwdriver to set a screw with exactly 5 foot-lbs of torque. Or the car analogy: patenting driving a car on a highway to go to Disneyland.

    3. Re:How does the _market_ benefit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The market would benefit if people, when tackled with a problem, would first search patents for a solution. Instead people waste time independently reinventing things that someone already figured out, which slows down progress.

    4. Re:How does the _market_ benefit by sjames · · Score: 2

      The patent lawyers mad that impossible a long time ago. Given something you want to do, it is nearly impossible to search for a patent that does it in less time than it takes to implement it from scratch. Beyond that, if you actually do search patents you open yourself up to treble damages to every idiot with an obvious patent out there wanting to claim the rights to something that took you all of 30 seconds to think of and another 5 minutes to write the code. The current advice is to NEVER read patents.

      Beyond that, even if you find a patent that does exactly what you want and saves you months of development, nothing at all prevents the patent holder from demanding more than you expect your project to bring in for the first 5 years. And then, even if you implement something else you will have painted a big target on your back that practically guarantees that you will be eaten alive by court costs before you can even make a dime on your own work.

      So no. Until the USPTO and other offices rais the bar for patents a LOT, AND court costs are cut by a factor of a thousand or so, they will remain nothing but an impediment to progress.

    5. Re:How does the _market_ benefit by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      What's the point in spending a week looking for patents on a technique that will take 5 minutes to come up with and 3 hours to implement, especially since you still have to spend those 5 minutes recognizing and coming up with a solution and the 3 hours of implementation (since patents don't include implementations)?

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    6. Re:How does the _market_ benefit by mattventura · · Score: 1

      You might as well try to patent the whole process of inventing things.

      Shhh...stop giving them ideas

      .

  6. What is patentable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Dash is an XML format containing the URL's to media files and additional metadata (bitrates etc). Is there something novel or none-obvious about the way it works that a 12 year old couldn't figure out?

    1. Re:What is patentable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the complete circus that is the U.S, everything and anything is patentable.

    2. Re:What is patentable? by sjames · · Score: 1

      In other words, it's just the evergreened version of playlists and RSS.

    3. Re:What is patentable? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Let's see what Apple, Microsoft, Google, Samsung and Netflix have to say about this. They're the ones with the cash to fight this in court.

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    4. Re:What is patentable? by DrXym · · Score: 1

      I expect there is more to implementation of a client / server than just an XML format - e.g. knowing how to handover from one quality to another, load balancing, crypto, real time encoding etc. Probably enough to justify a patent pool.

    5. Re:What is patentable? by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 2

      Just a thought... Do you realize how screwed your justice system is when you can only have justice if you have a lot of money to pay for it?

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    6. Re:What is patentable? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Well it's not my justice system...

      But yeah, that's screwed up. Laws aren't about justice anymore, it's about being legal to screw everybody else.

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    7. Re:What is patentable? by Barbecue911 · · Score: 1

      Let's see what Apple, Microsoft, Google, Samsung and Netflix have to say about this. They're the ones with the cash to fight this in court.

      Some of these companies are actually part of the MPEG-LA, somewhat like stockholders as they hold the patents that form the patent pool. Google is probably a notable exception as they are pushing their own VP codec.

    8. Re:What is patentable? by Holi · · Score: 4, Informative

      The patent office just issues patents, they think the courts are where those type of disputes should be handled. The courts think that since the patent office issued the patent it must be valid.

      You have two sides, neither of which are doing their job because they figure the other is.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    9. Re:What is patentable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I expect there is more to implementation of a client / server than just an XML format - e.g. knowing how to handover from one quality to another

      Client issue. In mp4 containers we have the moov atom to provide metadata. If this is at the start of the container then the media is seekable before download is complete. That is what the dash metadata replicates so that source files can be switched seamlessly.

      load balancing, crypto, real time encoding

      None of this has anything to do with mpeg dash.

    10. Re:What is patentable? by Kkloe · · Score: 1

      So can someone say implement this same stuff in JSON and then patent it for free use?

    11. Re:What is patentable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...people still use XML?

  7. Where are the reverse patent trolls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope the MPEG LA finds someone with an essential patent who asks for 1 trillion dollars.

    1. Re:Where are the reverse patent trolls? by doas777 · · Score: 1

      If they did, they would just have a court declare the technology standards-essential, and make licensing compulsory under so-called FRAND terms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    2. Re:Where are the reverse patent trolls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the essential patent belongs to an MPEG LA member, then sure. But if it belongs to anyone else, then the MPEG LA can't do shit. FRAND isn't a law, it's an agreement between a standards organization and its members.

    3. Re:Where are the reverse patent trolls? by doas777 · · Score: 1

      True, but DASH is a standard, so the use of a patented technology in that standard requires FRAND, which the courts will adjudicate, as proven by Motorola v Microsoft.

    4. Re:Where are the reverse patent trolls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're still missing the point. In Motorola v Microsoft, Motorola had violated its agreement with the IEEE and ITU. There remains the possibility of an entity that isn't a member of any standards organization, the entity owning a patent essential to DASH, and the MPEG LA simply unaware of the patent when they drafted the standard.

    5. Re:Where are the reverse patent trolls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      <holding pinky finger up to corner of mouth>One Treeeeleeon Dollars!</Austin Powers>

    6. Re:Where are the reverse patent trolls? by doas777 · · Score: 1

      Thats not actually true, When RAMBUS ambushed everyone with the patented technologies they snuck into the JEDEC DDR2 specification, They were ordered to accept FRAND licensing as a result. http://patent-damages.com/2013...

  8. Translation ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4

    "Market adoption of DASH technology standards has increased to the point where the market would benefit from the availability of a convenient nondiscriminatory, nonexclusive worldwide one-stop patent pool license."

    Which roughly translates into "Wouldn't it be awesome if all you bitches had to keep paying us money?".

    So many software patents are bloody terrible. They're stuff we all learned about in school, applied to a specific thing, and then made so generic as to claim ownership of pretty an entire class of computing.

    This entity needs to stop existing, as they're really nothing but parasites pretending they invented anything.

    Assholes.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Translation ... by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I think that software patents could be a bit more palatable if they also had to provide source code that was proven to compile and work as describe in the patent. As it stands right now, source code is not necessary, and only a vague description of what the functionality is necessary for software patents. That means, even if somebody else finds a better algorithm for doing what is covered in the patent, then the patent might still apply.

      This very much stifles innovation. Let's say somebody invents a wood chopping machine and patents it. Now I discover something that is slowing their machine down, or making it unreliable. If I find out a solution to that, I can patent my fix and start selling a better wood chopping machine. With software, if somebody patents the idea of compressing a video, and I come up with an algorithm that compresses it at 10 times the speed while achieving the same end result, then my algorithm would probably already be covered by the existing patent.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    2. Re:Translation ... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      I think that software patents could be a bit more palatable if they also had to provide source code that was proven to compile and work as describe in the patent.

      The problem you should not be able to patent an algorithm, and software patents have nothing to do with source code.

      Software patents often read as "a system and methodology for doing something we all learned about in school but applied to a specific problem and now you can't do it, suckers".

      They're patents on an idea or a solution to a class of problem. They claim ownership of something stupid like "encrypting a bank transaction over an internet link" or some other stupid thing like that.

      With software, if somebody patents the idea of compressing a video

      See, this is where software patents become bullshit ... you can't patent an idea, you can't patent an algorithm. I can't patent the idea of a flying car, I can patent the specifics of my novel invention.

      Compression has existed since people first figured out what the Lev-Zimpel algorithm actually meant. Compression exists as a thing ... making digital stuff smaller by identifying encodings to save space. It's like caching, where you keep copies closer to where you deliver it. It's a concept.

      You can't subsequently claim to patent compression of a specific thing. You can patent your implementation, but if you are patenting the idea of compressing video, your patent should be null and void.

      What you can't do is patent a "system and methodology for doing something we already do but applied to a specific class thing". Especially when your patent is taking 10 things everybody knows how to do, stringing them together, and simply saying "ta da, patent bitches".

      That would be like a carpenter patenting the idea of a fucking table.

      Pretty much every software patent I've ever seen falls into the category of claiming an entire idea based on vague notions and existing methods already string together in ways that if you said "I want to do this" any CS undergrad could tell you how to do it at a high level based on the tools which already exist.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Translation ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you can't do is patent a "system and methodology for doing something we already do but applied to a specific class thing".

      But companies do this all the time. They take ideas (who's patents have expired back in the 1890's) and add the words "on a computer", "on a cell phone", or "on the internet", and presto chango an "entirely new" concept no one has ever thought of before. Though even then it sometimes takes some cash under the table before the patent office see it that way.

    4. Re:Translation ... by rsmith-mac · · Score: 1

      Which roughly translates into "Wouldn't it be awesome if all you bitches had to keep paying us money?".

      At least in this case it seems to be the other way around. MPEG-LA believes that there are already patents in play here, so they want to form a patent pool to get the matter settled before it derails further adoption of media streaming. The organization's entire reason to exist is to form patent pools to bring together disparate parties and avoid a fractured market where members' technologies don't get adopted due to overly-complex licensing terms or fears of patent suits.

      The MPEG-LA ultimately serves the interest of patent holders, but they have done a relatively reasonable job of it. No streaming fees on H.264, yearly caps, etc. Which is why the HEVC Advance splinter group formed, because they didn't think MPEG-LA's pool charged enough. Which should tell you what the real money grubbers think of MPEG-LA.

    5. Re:Translation ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be like a carpenter patenting the idea of a fucking table.

      Except when you come to the realization there are already f ing tables and yes, their design is patented.

    6. Re:Translation ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Software patents are not and will never be palatable. They're bad law for at least two major reasons.

      1) You can't patent math, and software is just applied math. At their purest, algorithms are mathematical proofs of data transformation. Software is an implementation of that algorithm on a specific set of hardware.

      2) In light of point #1, software is also an "electromechanical proof" of an existing, and already patented, device. That specific set of hardware that the software runs on is a patented (and rightly so) invention. To patent the software is to re-patent the device itself, for the purpose that one specific sequence of functions it can perform actually results in data transformation as described in someone else's patent.

      Software patents are bad law and need to be abolished, 100%, no exceptions, no sympathy.

    7. Re:Translation ... by lorinc · · Score: 1

      All software patents are bloody terrible.

      Fix that for you.

      --
      Video of some good progressive thrash music
    8. Re:Translation ... by Barbecue911 · · Score: 1

      There's a word for this: CARTEL.

    9. Re:Translation ... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      The organization's entire reason to exist is to form patent pools to bring together disparate parties and avoid a fractured market where members' technologies don't get adopted due to overly-complex licensing terms or fears of patent suits.

      Otherwise known as collusion by predatory trade groups presenting a barrier of entry to new players.

      Just because a bunch of CEOs work out a deal to fuck us all over doesn't make it a good thing.

      One set of greedy bastards vs another set of greedy bastards isn't good for anybody but greedy bastards. It sure as hell isn't a defense of terribly written and overly broad software patents.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    10. Re:Translation ... by jaklode · · Score: 1

      Software patents are not and will never be palatable. They're bad law for at least two major reasons.

      1) You can't patent math, and software is just applied math. At their purest, algorithms are mathematical proofs of data transformation. Software is an implementation of that algorithm on a specific set of hardware.

      2) In light of point #1, software is also an "electromechanical proof" of an existing, and already patented, device. That specific set of hardware that the software runs on is a patented (and rightly so) invention. To patent the software is to re-patent the device itself, for the purpose that one specific sequence of functions it can perform actually results in data transformation as described in someone else's patent.

      Software patents are bad law and need to be abolished, 100%, no exceptions, no sympathy.

      Now you have an issue: You patent the algorithm on a generic purpose computer, aka a machine.

    11. Re:Translation ... by Holi · · Score: 1

      There are patents for tables, but the patents aren't about them being tables. They all are something else the table does, the most common being the extensible table, like the Schwartz. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... . Now you go ahead and tell me that does not deserve a patent.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    12. Re:Translation ... by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      because they didn't think MPEG-LA's pool charged enough

      Of course it didn't charge enough! Why join a patent pool and get some tiny fraction of some fraction of revenue, when you can just sue directly and demand 5% of the revenue from the source?

      The Sewing Machine Patent Combine worked because there were three patent holders. When there are 3000 patent holders, all of them want their 5% and the system breaks down completely.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  9. Re: frost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's "pist" you idiot.

  10. Interesting timing by NimbleSquirrel · · Score: 2

    This call for patents comes just after HEVC Advance announce a HEVC patent pool to compete with MPEG LA. DASH is a complimentary technology to HEVC (h.265), and MPEG LA know it. By offering both DASH and HEVC patent licensing portfolios, they probably believe they are making themselves more attractive to deal with than HEVC Advance.

    Nevermind that this patent licensing competition is actually likely to impede the uptake of both technologies.

    1. Re:Interesting timing by jaklode · · Score: 1

      What do you mean more attractive? There is no real competition, both pools need to be licensed anyway.

    2. Re:Interesting timing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So use the technology of the "non-competition", even if the operational cost of deployment is higher compared to MPEG LA technology. Sure this cost is lower than the burden of complying to MPEG LA.

  11. yes they are all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SCUM !!!!

  12. Obnoxious terminology by michaelmalak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Here is the original MPEG-LA press release. They really did entitle it "call for patents", which is obnoxious because it plays off of "call for papers", which is a call to share technology information, not restrict it. This type of turning a phrase to be the opposite and evil intention of its original reminds me of Braveheart's jus primae noctis.

    1. Re:Obnoxious terminology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is amusing, as in general there are no direct historical sources for it, only repeated records of resistance to it, although at some point it may have been used (without legal authority) as a means of extortion. In this case there is no direct evidence that such a right existed or was used, except as a means of villainizing the nobles in question, who where by modern standards evil but no worse than their Scottish contemporaries....

  13. HLS will win if DASH is patented by StandardCell · · Score: 1

    HLS already dominates by streamed hours of content, is implemented in every connected device stack, is patent free due t using MPEG Transport Streams and M3U8 playlists, and is much simpler to implement than DASH. If the MPEG-LA and the DASH-IF wants DASH to fail, they should take a good look at why they're trying to grab for more money.

    1. Re:HLS will win if DASH is patented by Coolhand2120 · · Score: 1

      HLS ... is implemented in every connected device stack ...

      I can play HLS content in my Chrome browser you mean? Oh, no it doesn't have HLS support, only widevine. OK, howabout IE... no, not there either, that only supports playready. Ok, firefox! no, not FF without a NPAPI plugin - which will be gone eventually. Safari? Well yeah, sort of. What's left? Opera? and no, not Opera without NPAPI.

      So what do you mean by "every connected device stack"?

  14. Or go F*#$ your patents by Wokan · · Score: 1

    Give us something unencumbered to use.

  15. NOT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I had a patent for some code, then the last thing I would do is allow myself to become a slave to others.

  16. but, but, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [insert pic of quivering lower lip] what will the executives and lawyers at MPEG LA do for a living, if they do not have a new shakedown scam in place before all the current MPG patents expire???

    This is not a scheme to allow MPEG LA to keep behaving like The Mob, oh noooooo, this is a public service...

    Have mercy on these people! The maintenance costs alone on a business jet are HUGE and you don't really expect this sort of people to pay for things like that with actual WORK, do you? Only the little people from flyover country should have to actually be productive to get the cash they need for the stuff they want. Everybody knows that the well-connected smart people are entitled to live a deluxe lifestyle off the efforts of others. How DARE anybody question that?

  17. AARRR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pirates don't care about the claims of these scurvious yellow bellied dogs or there slips of patent paper.

  18. Chrome is an application, not a device stack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Devices include tablets and smartphones (iOS, Android and Windows phone), Windows and OSX PCs, and connected TVs, set-top boxes and Blu-ray players. The HLS APIs are exposed and used for app development in the development environments for all these devices. Chrome or other browsers may or may not have the capabilities, but they aren't software stacks.