Jump to content

Talk:MPEG LA

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Importance

[edit]

Isn't it a bit weird that there's almost nothing here on MPEG-LA, one of the most important and controversial players behind the current video crisis codec, and moreover that its importance is ranked low? (See [1], for example.) I'm not a Wikipedia editor, but I think that this should be a "high" class importance article in some video/film related category. 76.100.172.199 (talk) 01:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because they do not do any real work AFAIK. They just hunt. I sure hope they will meet their match soon. --Nux (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Licensors

[edit]

In the light of the ongoing discussion on AVC/H.264 and Flash I would find it helpful to see some (if not all) of the MPEG LA licensors (Apple Inc., Microsoft Corporation...) in this article (see AVC/H.264 Licensors). . 92.251.160.60 (talk) 07:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done --beefyt (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acronym

[edit]

What does MPEG LA stand for? I can't seem to find anything on the MPEG LA web site, or any other ref that would clear this up.
--Gyrobo (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed them and asked. Tom O'Reilly, Manager, Research and Public Relations, responded: 'MPEG LA does not stand for anything other than the name of our company.' Sam Dutton (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a let-down. I thought it would be something cool. And we can't even use that in the article because it hasn't been published.
--Gyrobo (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its meant to sound like MPEG so people think they are MPEG researchers instead of predatory lawyers 121.45.244.161 (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DOJ Anti-trust Investigation

[edit]

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/03/04/1358236/DOJ-Anti-trust-Investigation-of-MPEG-LA Palosirkka (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose for this company to exist?

[edit]

When my son's great-grandchildren read history of the birth of the global network, and its many forms of communication, what will it say was the reason this group got together? Was it to gather royalties to pay tribute to the creators of the video-enabling parts? Was it to exact a massive fee upon the world by applying patent law to logical extensions of existing ideas? Was it to enable open global communication with the highest odds of compatibility by suppressing competition with this standard by implementations that were more advanced in one aspect but incomplete in another? This article seems to have little of such content. How come? Zaphraud (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, it was to license codecs and technologies developed by the Moving Pictures Experts Group. When Panasonic wanted to make a DVD player they'd pay the MPEG LA for the license to use an MPEG-2 decoder. It was the body established to legally own what the MPEG produced. Zirka (talk) 01:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MPEG-2 license agreement

[edit]

Removed some statements about the MPEG LA since they included analysis of the MPEG-2 license agreement to advance a position not based on the source which violates WP:NOR and since some of the information is not found in the given reference which violates WP:VERIFY. Also even if it is true that MPEG-2 licensees only need to pay royalties in countries in which there is at least one active patent I don't see how that is an argument against the criticism that the MPEG-2 license rate remains the same as patents expire. For example if there were 200 patents for a video standard and each patent cost a cent than it would cost $2 to license that video standard but when 90% of those patents expire it would only cost 20 cents. A patent pool changes that since when 90% of the patents expire the patent pool can continue to charge $2 for a license. The MPEG LA might release an explanation for their actions in the future but until that happens Wikipedia policies are clear about having no orginal research and the requirement for verifiability. --GrandDrake (talk) 01:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first and third sentences of the foregoing citing inaccurate secondary sources (unverified opinion blogs) are in error. With the benefit of accurate information from primary sources (the actual patent lists and license agreement referenced below), they do not qualify as fair or accurate criticism. Regarding the first sentence: The MPEG-2 patent pool began with 100 patents in 1997 [2]. The MPEG-2 Patent Portfolio License did not have 1,048 patents in 1997. It just reached 1,042 patents as of this year (2013). [3]. Instead of increasing proportionally during that time (from $4.00 to $40.00 if similar math were applied), royalties decreased despite this dramatic growth in coverage [See Section 3.1 of the MPEG-2 License at http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/M2/Pages/License.aspx]. Regarding the third sentence: According to the MPEG-2 Patent Portfolio License [See Section 3.1 at http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/M2/Pages/License.aspx], Licensees pay royalties only for products manufactured or sold in a country with one or more active (not expired) patents at that time; where there is no patent in the country of manufacture or country of sale, no royalty is payable. Everything material to a Licensee’s decision to enter into the License, including patent expirations, is publicly known at the time of their signing. Therefore, both the first and third sentences should be removed. We would also suggest that the second sentence be removed as it bears no meaning as a criticism without the first and third sentences. --Oemtom (talk) 13:50 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Neither of the references are blogs and I have added another reference. While one of the references did get the date wrong the MPEG LA doesn't make things easy since they keep adding new patents to the patent pool. That stream of new patents means that people in the United States, which has a poorly made patent system, will end up having to pay MPEG-2 royalties long after the 20th anniversary of the MPEG-2 standard. Currently there are MPEG-2 patents in the United States lasting up until 2018 and more might be added due to submarine patents. Also the explanation given for why you want the sentences removed is based on an interpretation of primary source material which is not allowed as stated in WP:PRIMARY. --GrandDrake (talk) 01:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some changes in the wording and added another reference. --GrandDrake (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


According to Wikipedia, "articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)." My previous comment is based on primary sources stating clearly and without need for interpretation that the information in the referenced opinion blogs is not accurate and therefore, not reliable. The commenter admits that in his/her opening sentence (“While one of the references did get the date wrong…”) and fails to provide any new information; nor could he/she provide any reliable information because the primary sources I cite contain the actual and reliable facts. Instead, the commenter goes on only to give his/her own opinions about the United States patent system. Therefore, the first and third sentences should be removed based on the fact it has been proved that the information they contain is not from reliable sources. --Oemtom (talk) 07:34 8 June 2013 (UTC)

That one of the references made a single mistake does not automatically make it unreliable. If you want me to bring that specific reference up on the Wikipedia noticeboard I will do that though I do not see the point considering there are three other references. Also do you have any other reasons for thinking that the sentences should be removed? --GrandDrake (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact my responses rely on primary sources is reason enough, but as an alternative, I propose adding after your critique the following based on the MPEG LA primary sources in order to allow users to formulate their own opinion: The MPEG-2 patent pool began with 100 patents in 1997 [4] and reached 1,042 patents this year (2013). [5]. Instead of increasing proportionally during that time (from the initial $4.00 to $40.00, for example), royalties decreased despite this dramatic growth in coverage [See Section 3.1 of the MPEG-2 License at http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/M2/Pages/License.aspx]. According to the MPEG-2 Patent Portfolio License [See Section 3.1 at http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/M2/Pages/License.aspx], Licensees pay royalties only for products manufactured or sold in a country with one or more active (not expired) patents at that time; where there is no patent in the country of manufacture or country of sale, no royalty is payable. Everything material to a Licensee’s decision to enter into the License, including patent expirations, is publicly known at the time of their signing. --Oemtom (talk) 23:34 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia prefers independent third-party sources as explained in WP:THIRDPARTY and WP:NOTADVERTISING. Your proposal is based on an interpretation of primary source material which is not allowed as stated in WP:NOR and WP:PRIMARY. WP:NPOV would allow an opinion to be added from the MPEG LA as long as it is not given undue weight. --GrandDrake (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. My proposal is not based on an interpretation of primary source materials. The primary source materials are clear. They are not opinions. They are facts, which by nature cannot be given undue weight. Instead of deleting what you have written in your critique, all I am proposing is that facts from primary source materials be presented so people can have the benefit of these facts in drawing their own opinions. --Oemtom (talk) 16:34 12 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.198.15.30 (talk)
All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source as explained in WP:PRIMARY. Also original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist or to any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources as explained in WP:NOR. For example "Instead of increasing proportionally during that time (from the initial $4.00 to $40.00, for example), royalties decreased despite this dramatic growth in coverage" would violate both policies. --GrandDrake (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the example. I can remove the parts of that sentence that you are concerned with. Here is what I would propose as a revision: The MPEG-2 patent pool began with 100 patents in 1997 [6] and reached 1,042 patents this year (2013) [7]. Instead of increasing during that time, royalties decreased [See Section 3.1 of the MPEG-2 License at http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/M2/Pages/License.aspx]. According to the MPEG-2 Patent Portfolio License [See Section 3.1 at http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/M2/Pages/License.aspx], Licensees pay royalties only for products manufactured or sold in a country with one or more active (not expired) patents at that time; where there is no patent in the country of manufacture or country of sale, no royalty is payable. Everything material to a Licensee’s decision to enter into the License, including patent expirations, is publicly known at the time of their signing. --Oemtom (talk) 21:50 14 June 2013 (UTC)
The proposal is based on the analyses/synthesis of primary sources to advance a position. If you can find a reliable secondary source which defends the MPEG-2 patent pool you could use that in the article but what you are currently proposing would be original research. --GrandDrake (talk) 02:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I was asked to help. I've read this area of the talk page and it appears the parties have a dispute about adding material with references which do not meet Wikipedia standards. Do I understand this correctly? Are we referring to refs 6 and 7? Is there another issue to address or one either party anticipates may be a problem in the very near future? Thanks. Jobberone (talk) 10:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Jobberone. Yes, the dispute centers on references 6 and 7 inclusive of the links to MPEG-2 Patent lists and the MPEG-2 License, which provide the factual context from which Wikipedia visitors can draw their own conclusions regarding GrandDrake’s criticism. --Oemtom (talk) 15:45 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok, let's discuss 5,6 and 7 which appear to be press releases to start this off as most of the dispute/conflict centers on what is admissible on Wikipedia. Perhaps clearing that up will help. All of the above are primary sources which appear to be from one interested party. While primary sources are allowed these need to be followed up with a secondary or tertiary source IMO. The reasons for why these need secondary sources have been outlined on the talk page. Have you posted further references to verify those refs?Jobberone (talk) 11:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response and questions. For the sake of clarity, references #5 and #7 on the Talk page are the same document, so I will refer to them collectively as #5. References #5 and #6 are not press releases. Rather, they are the list of patents included in the MPEG-2 License as of the respective dates (April 1, 2013 for #5, and July 8, 1997 for #6). Additionally, the link that I provided -- http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/M2/Pages/License.aspx -- is the license agreement signed by licensees to MPEG LA’s MPEG-2 License. To be clear, these are all factual documents, rather than press releases or marketing pieces.
With respect to your comment “these need to be followed up by secondary or tertiary sources IMO,” I would agree if these primary sources were PR- or marketing-related. But as explained above, they are not. In fact, an individual license agreement in this identical form has been published and signed repeatedly with MPEG LA by parties representing almost 2,000 licensees, and the patent lists have been published quarterly to both licensees and the world at large since the licensing program began in 1997. According to WP:PRIMARY, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, and do not need to be followed up with a secondary or tertiary source. Additionally, based on input from GrandDrake, I have removed any interpretation, analysis, etc., from my proposed language.
As stated in my 12 June post, all I have proposed is that facts from primary source materials be presented to allow this section of the article to be fair and without bias, per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, so people may draw their own opinions based on both views. --Oemtom (talk) 20:57 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I understand the frustration of having to deal with this. I don't doubt the veracity of the documents/refs. I still think there should be some secondary references. I've read further into the subject matter and frankly I would have to spend a good bit of time trying to really understand it. However, I'm reasonably well versed in Wikipedia protocol. My judgment is in agreement with GrandDrake's which are well documented. That's two editors who independently arrived at the same conclusions for whatever that is worth. You are welcome to ask another editor for their opinion and I would be interested in what they have to say. These matters are not always black and white and there isn't a right and wrong here. You could also take this matter to the next step. Whatever you two decide I would encourage both to avoid editing wars which you have done and to continue with the present civility which I find admirable and refreshing. Best. Jobberone (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't about the reliablity of the primary sources, the MPEG-2 license agreement and two patent lists, but about the analyses/synthesis of those primary sources to advance a position. If you can find a reliable secondary source you could use that in the article. --GrandDrake (talk) 01:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your further input. Based on that, I have included secondary sources in addition to primary sources and slightly revised wording that I understand meets all applicable Wikipedia rules for addition to the Criticism section: The MPEG-2 patent pool began with 100 patents in 1997 [1, 2, 3, 4], and grew to more than 1,000 patents by early 2013 [3, 5]. Despite the increase in patents, there has been no increase in royalties [6, 7]; instead, MPEG-2 royalties are one-half to two-thirds lower than when the license began [7, 8, 9]. Licensees pay royalties only for products manufactured or sold in a country with one or more active (not expired) patents at that time; where there is no patent in the country of manufacture or country of sale, no royalty is payable [7, 10]. Everything material to a Licensee’s decision to enter into the License, including patent expirations, is publicly known at the time of their signing [7, 11].

Sources: [1] http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jcb/journal/v9/n2/pdf/3040017a.pdf - p. 120 [2] http://books.google.com/books?id=s63wD6yDlmkC&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=Horn+Van+Overwalle+The+MPEG+LA+Licensing+Model&source=bl&ots=-bBEKLSWuh&sig=POzPrOxILmRhBlcSze2nRUwrXeM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AXbEUeThBfK54AOPwYGQAQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Horn%20Van%20Overwalle%20The%20MPEG%20LA%20Licensing%20Model&f=false – footnote 6 [3] http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs-v2/12-398_resp_amcu_mpegla.authcheckdam.pdf – p. 11 [4] http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/M2/Documents/m2-att1-July8-1997.pdf [5] http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/m2/Documents/m2-att1.pdf [6]http://www.nber.org/chapters/c5304.pdf [7] http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/M2/Pages/License.aspx - Section 3.1 [8] http://www.eetimes.com/design/other/4012977/MPEG-licensing-basics?pageNumber=3 [9] http://www.dvd-and-beyond.com/display-article.php?article=686 [10] http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/busreview/215742.pdf – p. 6 [11] http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/busreview/215742.pdf – p. 11

--Oemtom (talk) 12:17 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I have made several changes for neutrality according to WP:NPOV. I did not add the last two sentences since they advance a position and are only referenced by primary sources. And I don't see how those two sentences relate to the criticism section. The criticism isn't that the MPEG-2 patent pool won't expire, even with submarine patents that will eventually happen, but that the expiration rate of MPEG-2 patents has no effect on the license fee. --GrandDrake (talk) 04:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the changes you made.
Now I see the source of the disconnect, and I think we can bridge it.
You are making the point that “the license fee has not decreased [further] with the expiration rate of MPEG-2 patents” and “MPEG-2 licensees pay a license fee that does not change based on the number of patents that have expired” but in fact the obligation to pay a royalty does change based on the number of patents that have expired: where there is no longer a patent left in the country of manufacture or country of sale for a product, no royalty is payable for that product. Therefore, I suggest you edit your critique by substituting “except where there is no longer an active (not expired) patent in the country of manufacture or country of sale” in place of “that does not change based on the number of patents that have expired”. This point is supported by both primary (http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/M2/Pages/License.aspx) and secondary (http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/busreview/215742.pdf) sources. --Oemtom (talk) 22:17 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Stating that the MPEG-2 license fee will change when all the patents have expired, which will happen in most countries in 2016, seems redundant but I have added a brief mention of that to the last sentence. --GrandDrake (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Almost there. The language you have added would make the statement misleading while my language is accurate and still allows you to make your criticism. The fact is that the royalty rate goes down to zero when there is no patent in the country of manufacture or country of sale, and that is supported by both primary and secondary sources in compliance with all of your points. As a concession to your last point, however, in order to make it clearer, I have added the words "no royalty is payable" to the language I previously proposed as follows: "...except no royalty is payable where there is no longer an active (not expired) patent in the country of manufacture or country of sale." --Oemtom (talk) 18:13 25 June 2013 (UTC)
The criticism comes from the references and those references meet the standard for WP:VERIFY. As for the proposal I have changed it to make it neutral and have added a sentence about it to the article. --GrandDrake (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think you disagree that there is no royalty for a product where there is no longer an active (not expired) patent in the country of manufacture or country of sale, so I am confused as to why you would not use the language that I proposed in the place that I proposed it. To assure your criticism is made accurately, neutrally and without being misleading, I propose a combined approach: (a) retaining your most recent addition and (b) including the language I proposed "...except no royalty is payable where there is no longer an active (not expired) patent in the country of manufacture or country of sale" in a parenthetical at the very end following the word "expired". --Oemtom (talk) 15:25 27 June 2013 (UTC)
The reason I didn't use the proposed language was due to neutrality since it sounded like it was promoting the MPEG-2 license agreement. Also to dilute the criticism by adding details from the MPEG-2 license agreement would violate WP:NPOV. --GrandDrake (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stating a fact that is supported by both primary and secondary sources is not promoting the MPEG-2 license agreement. Rather, based on WP:UCS and WP:NPOV, the proposed language "represents fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias" material information the omission of which could be misleading and prevent a reader from making a fully informed opinion. This makes for a more complete criticism that supports WP:NPOV rather than violates it. --Oemtom (talk) 12:04 28 June 2013 (UTC)
How a fact is stated can make a huge difference and "except no royalty is payable where there is no longer an active (not expired) patent" is a statement that is both awkward and biased. It makes it sound like licensees are getting rewarded for not being forced to pay MPEG-2 royalties when all of the patents have expired. It is much more neutral to state that licensees must pay MPEG-2 royalties as long as there is one or more active patents. Also trying to alter criticism because you disagree with it would violate WP:NPOV. The MPEG-2 license fee doesn't change based on the expiration rate of patents and your claim of needing to change it to make it "more complete" seems like an excuse to dilute the criticism by adding a bunch of details from the MPEG-2 license agreement. Details that are already found in the paragraph just before the criticism of the MPEG-2 patent pool. --GrandDrake (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your efforts to work together on this, but am disappointed in the stance that you are taking on this final detail. To be clear, it is the documented facts, not me, that separate us from the balance that is wanting in your criticism. I think maybe the limitations of email are getting in the way of our understanding, so let me try to explain the problem a different way: To say that “The MPEG-2 license fee doesn't change based on the expiration rate of patents” is only partially correct and therefore misleading without also saying that a royalty is no longer payable as a result of patent expirations when in fact the last patent in the country of manufacture and country of sale for which a royalty was previously payable expires. Therefore, here is another suggestion: Instead of “(...except no royalty is payable where there is no longer an active (not expired) patent in the country of manufacture or country of sale)", let’s try (“…until there is no longer an active (not expired) patent in the country of manufacture or country of sale.)” That then builds neutrally on the foundation of your earlier statement “licensees must pay MPEG-2 royalties as long as there is one or more active patents”. --Oemtom (talk) 11:34 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I am trying to make this article neutral and criticism is supposed to reflect what is stated in the references. I have added the information to the sentence. --GrandDrake (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your cooperation and for working so hard on this. I think you have almost nailed it. With a couple minor tweaks (which don’t materially change what you want), I think you will have achieved the goal of neutrality in a criticism reflecting the references: “By 2015 more than 90% of the MPEG-2 patents will have expired but as long as there are one or more active patents in either the country of manufacture or the country of sale, the MPEG-2 license agreement requires that licensees pay a license fee that does not change based on the number of patents that have expired.[25][26][27][28][29] ” --Oemtom (talk) 14:20 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Changed the wording though I kept both of the commas in the sentence. --GrandDrake (talk) 00:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The commas should be deleted as it otherwise looks like two points are being made instead of one. Thank you once again for all your cooperation on this. Please also substitute this sentence for the corresponding sentence in the “Patent Pool” section of the MPEG-2 article. --Oemtom (talk) 15:27 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Changed the wording. --GrandDrake (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on MPEG LA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merger with Via LA and article rewrite

[edit]

Hey, I don't know if anyone noticed, but a couple days ago someone changed the whole page and now it reads like total marketing speak. I am interested in contributing to improving the wording and content of the article, but I'd appreciate some guidance on best practices so I can get things right the first time.

Also I don't know if there's anything specific that ought to be done in response to this change, on a bigger picture scale. Zirka (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MPEG_LA&oldid=1201664535"