- From: Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 08:03:30 -0700
- To: Rob Lanphier <robla@real.com>
- Cc: olivier.avaro@francetelecom.com, "'Hari Kalva'" <hari@flavorsoftware.com>, rem-conf@es.net, discuss@apps.ietf.org
>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
Received on Monday, 2 April 2001 11:08:43 UTC