MPEG announced today it is working on a royalty-free MPEG standard in two tracks, one track based on expired MPEG patents and other royalty free technologies and the other based on a proposal that patent holders grant a royalty-free license to a “constrained baseline profile” of the widely used AVC/h.264 standard.

According to the MPEG press release, “Depending on the progress of the two tracks, MPEG will decide, in 2012, whether to choose IVC or WebVC to become an International Standard.”

Given the heavy hitters that are lining up behind these proposals and the significance of the forum of ISO and the MPEG committee, it is worth looking deeper at the public information that has been released on these proposals.

“MPEG Plus” (IVC)

The MPEG press release describes IVC:

“focuses on developing a standard based on MPEG-1 technology which is believed a safe royalty-free baseline that can be enhanced by additional unencumbered technology described in MPEG-2, JPEG, research publications and innovative technologies which are promised to be subject to royalty-free licenses”

Cryptically, a MPEG meeting resolution states “The Requirements subgroup recommends that MPEG members make WG 11 aware of market developments in the space addressed by IVC.”

According to the MPEG meeting resolution, the IVC proposal appears to come from “HKUST, Peking University, Tsinghua University and Zhejiang University”.

“Patent Pool Lite” (WebVC)

According to the MPEG meeting resolution, the WebVC proposal appears to come from “Apple, Cisco, Fraunhofer HHI, Magnum Semiconductor, Polycom, and RIM”.  The MPEG LA website shows that 4 of these (Apple, Cisco, Fraunhofer, and Polycom), are among the 28 existing patent holders in the AVC/h.264 patent pool.

The MPEG press release describes WebVC:

“A second track, called WebVC, is driven by stakeholders of AVC technology. WebVC focuses on the constrained baseline profile from the widely used AVC standard (Rec. ITU-T H.264 | ISO/IEC 14496-10). Proponents of WebVC have indicated that they hope to convince stakeholders to grant a royalty-free license for this technology, which was originally standardized in 2003.”

According to section 3.11.1 the meeting resolutions, it appears that if approved Web Video Coding would become a new part 29 to the AVC/h.264 standard (ISO/IEC 14496-29 – Web Video Coding).

Cryptically, a MPEG meeting resolution states “The Requirements subgroup recommends that proponents of technology for Web Video Coding further improve the support for their proposal in order to meet market needs as identified in the IVC CfP”.

What Will Happen?

As a proponent of “IPR-aware” royalty free standardization (see for example Half of MPEG-2 Patents Expire in 2012), I am naturally inclined to the first track and skeptical of the second.  It seems every few months a patent pool or some one manages to spin up wishful thinking that there will soon be a “new deal” that will answer the needs of royalty free communities, only to cleverly leave the hopeful twisting in the wind.  Indeed, AVC/h.264 has been holding out the prospect of a royalty-free baseline since 2001, when the work on AVC/h.264 was first announced!  And AVC/h.264 patents are still being litigated.

But … one can easily imagine multiple possible outcomes under the oversight of MPEG:

– one, none or both of the proposals end up ultimately adopted, perhaps in a modified or improved form
– the two proposals evolve and are merged down the road
– etc.

My take:  Read the fine print and published patent analysis on any “AVC/h.264 constrained baseline” very, very carefully before you get excited.  And hopefully, ISO and the MPEG committee will continue to do a professional, no-nonsense job in assessing these proposals and moving forward on a royalty-free MPEG standard that the industry can have confidence in.

MPEG-2 Patents

The patents on substantial technologies of MPEG-2 will soon expire.

More precisely, 50% of the MPEG-2 patent pool (134 US patents, including the 27 original 1996 MPEG-2 IPR Working Group’s patents) will expire by October 16, 2012.  The remainder dribble out for several years through various patent life-extension techniques (continuations, divisions, and patent term adjustments).

I prepared these materials to assist MPEG’s consideration of a royalty-free MPEG standard.  Presentation MPEG-2 Patents, spreadsheet MPEG-2 Patents List (also in MPEG-2-Patents-List xls format).  Also a presentation on MPEG-2 Systems Patents.

Special acknowledgement to Josh Cogliati’s insightful work at OS News.  But all errors here are my own, corrections are welcome, and standard provisos are in the presentations.

Some slide excerpts below.

 

 

 

 

 

MPEG has announced it has received proposals for a royalty-free MPEG standard and has settled on a deliberation process to consider them.

The press release is here; the underlying meeting resolution is here.  Relevant portions are copied below.

A short analysis of the proposals is available at: MPEG Plus or Patent Pool Lite? MPEG Mulls Royalty-Free Proposals.

From ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11 N12258, December 2011 – Geneva, CH:

MPEG continues toward royalty-free video coding

At its 98th meeting, MPEG received responses to the Call for Proposals on Internet Video Coding Technologies. As a result, two tracks towards royalty-free video coding are being pursued. One track, called IVC, focuses on developing a standard based on MPEG-1 technology which is believed a safe royalty-free baseline that can be enhanced by additional unencumbered technology described in MPEG-2, JPEG, research publications and innovative technologies which are promised to be subject to royalty-free licenses. A second track, called WebVC, is driven by stakeholders of AVC technology. WebVC focuses on the constrained baseline profile from the widely used AVC standard (Rec. ITU-T H.264 | ISO/IEC 14496-10). Proponents of WebVC have indicated that they hope to convince stakeholders to grant a royalty-free license for this technology, which was originally standardized in 2003.

Depending on the progress of the two tracks, MPEG will decide, in 2012, whether to choose IVC or WebVC to become an International Standard.

————
From Resolutions, the 98th SC 29/WG 11 Meeting, 2011-11-28/12-02, Geneva, Switzerland  [SC 29/WG 11 N 12254:

3.11        Part 29 Web Video Coding

3.11.1        The Requirements and Video subgroups thank Apple, Cisco, Fraunhofer HHI, Magnum Semiconductor, Polycom, and RIM for their response to the CfP on Internet Video Coding.

3.11.2        The Requirements subgroup recommends that proponents of technology for Web Video Coding further improve the support for their proposal in order to meet market needs as identified in the IVC CfP.

3.11.3        The video subgroup recommends to approve of the following documents

No. Title TBP Available
14496-29 – Web Video Coding
12365 Request for subdivision: ISO/IEC 14496-29 N 11/12/02
12366 Working Draft of  ISO/IEC 14496-29 Web Video Coding Y 11/12/19

3.11.4        The availability of N12366 and its publication may be delayed if the Video chairs consider the working draft not sufficiently mature.

15.3        Internet Video Coding

15.3.1        The Requirements and Video subgroups thank HKUST, Peking University, Tsinghua University and Zhejiang University for their response to the CfP on Internet Video Coding.

15.3.2        The Video subgroup recommends approval of the following documents:

No. Title TBP Available
Exploration – Internet Video Coding
12355 Internet Video Coding Test Model (ITM) v 1.0 N 11/12/16
12356 Description of Core Experiments in Internet Video Coding N 11/12/10

15.3.3        The Requirements subgroup recommends that MPEG members make WG 11 aware of market developments in the space addressed by IVC.

———–