Probably because some patent pools are managed by different management companies. For example AACS Licensing Corporation handles AACS. MPEG LA handles licensing for MPEG 2, AVC and VC-1. Then the BDA handle Blu Ray logos and compliance licensing. And DVD Format Licensing Corporation for DVD licensing. And BD+ is handled BD+ Technologies LLC.
Very confusing, but probably symptomatic of what happens when a standard pulls in technology from lots of places. It does make sense to have a one stop shop though.
"Be aware, however, that the bulk of Blu-ray patent holders have yet to declare their licensing intentions. For example, although many are currently working to establish MPEG LA as the administrator of a joint patent pool, this effort is still ongoing. Thus replicators and content publishers alike remain in the dark as to any further obligations."
Seems like the discussions in MPEG-LA have broken down, causing this seperate spin off. Problem with it is that it does not include patents from other companies (Samsung comes to mind) so an implementor is left having to figure out how to get a license for the rest of the bits.
It is also quite expensive as today's standards go. As a way of reference, an MPEG-4 AVC patent is only 35 cents or so and goes down from there with maximum caps. FYI, one would have to pay for all the codecs, and current red laser DVD fees on top of it.
And 11 cents per disc? That is quite high. Wonder what the reaction of the studios is.
In addition:
BDA does not play a role in this. They are a standards setting organization. IP collection is handled externally as this press release indicates.
Patent pools like this are voluntary meaning that they include whoever is interested in pooling their interests (in this case, the three companies mentioned). Companies are then faced to pay others not in the pool.
There can be backroom agreements to have one company act as a representative for them in such pools. But I don't see Toshiba or any other major company participating this way.
Finally, it doesn't include DVD per-se. It only includes the part of DVD which these three companies hold IP in. Mind you, Philips and Panasonic have substantial patents in that area but as you note, Toshiba and others (e.g. Warner) must be included for the license to be all inclusive.
“An engineer explained to us that hundreds of ear impressions were gathered in the name of research, and while each one obviously boasted its own unique shape and size, one single characteristic remained uniform across the board: the entrance into the ear canal is not a perfect circle, it's an oval.”
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Umm why didn't they do this in the first place???
Probably because some patent pools are managed by different management companies. For example AACS Licensing Corporation handles AACS. MPEG LA handles licensing for MPEG 2, AVC and VC-1. Then the BDA handle Blu Ray logos and compliance licensing. And DVD Format Licensing Corporation for DVD licensing. And BD+ is handled BD+ Technologies LLC.
Very confusing, but probably symptomatic of what happens when a standard pulls in technology from lots of places. It does make sense to have a one stop shop though.
'Corporate Greed' is a far simpler explanation.
Just to make it clearer:
"Be aware, however, that the bulk of Blu-ray patent holders have yet to declare their licensing intentions. For example, although many are currently working to establish MPEG LA as the administrator of a joint patent pool, this effort is still ongoing. Thus replicators and content publishers alike remain in the dark as to any further obligations."
http://www.emedialive.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?CategoryID=27&ArticleID=14071
Seems like the discussions in MPEG-LA have broken down, causing this seperate spin off. Problem with it is that it does not include patents from other companies (Samsung comes to mind) so an implementor is left having to figure out how to get a license for the rest of the bits.
It is also quite expensive as today's standards go. As a way of reference, an MPEG-4 AVC patent is only 35 cents or so and goes down from there with maximum caps. FYI, one would have to pay for all the codecs, and current red laser DVD fees on top of it.
And 11 cents per disc? That is quite high. Wonder what the reaction of the studios is.
In addition:
BDA does not play a role in this. They are a standards setting organization. IP collection is handled externally as this press release indicates.
Patent pools like this are voluntary meaning that they include whoever is interested in pooling their interests (in this case, the three companies mentioned). Companies are then faced to pay others not in the pool.
There can be backroom agreements to have one company act as a representative for them in such pools. But I don't see Toshiba or any other major company participating this way.
Finally, it doesn't include DVD per-se. It only includes the part of DVD which these three companies hold IP in. Mind you, Philips and Panasonic have substantial patents in that area but as you note, Toshiba and others (e.g. Warner) must be included for the license to be all inclusive.