RE: MP4 Player Available for Download

>At 10:00 AM 3/14/01 -0800, Dave Singer wrote:
>>I hate to carry on an off-topic thread, but the MPEG-4 file format 
>>is not heavily encumbered.  To my knowledge, we (Apple) are the 
>>only IPR owners in the file format per se, and the license needed 
>>would be the same as for the QT file format (i.e. it's the same 
>>IPR), for which we have plenty of examples of licensees (including 
>>Real Networks).
>
>Are you really willing to stand up and disclose the terms of the 
>Apple/RealNetworks agreement?  I think it's entirely inappropriate 
>to cite the Apple/RealNetworks agreement as an example of an MPEG-4 
>file format licensing success story, and entirely inappropriate to 
>discuss the terms of any deal that go beyond the joint press release:
>
>http://www.realnetworks.com/company/pressroom/pr/2000/apple.html
>
>Besides that, I don't think it's at all reasonable that if 
>RealNetworks and some other company/project want to interoperate, 
>that that other company/project should have to go to Apple to get 
>permission.  Do you?
>
>Rob

Of course not.  I was merely dealing with a common complaint about 
licensable technology -- that people seem to be unable to obtain 
licenses.  I wanted to point out that this was not the case here.  As 
you note, I am merely pointing out a fact of public knowledge:  that 
Apple and Real have agreed on terms for Real to use the QT Streaming 
format.  This is also true of a number of other companies who also 
support the QT Streaming format.
-- 
David Singer
Apple Computer/QuickTime