Question

APP Lodsys patents = MPEG-LA ?

There is much to do about Lodsys demanding a license-fee from app-developers for there in-app upgrades, we all assume that Apple's license to this technology should cover the app-developers.

How i understand it, the MPEG, JPG and GIF licences work exactly the same, Apple (member of the MPEG-LA) paid for the
licensing in osX and iOS but each graphic application also pays a licence on
there own. There is even a free licence to publish these formats on the
internet but a license non the less, apparently all 3 groups need
licensing.

Is this the same or are there differences i don't see?

Discussion is locked
Follow
Reply to: APP Lodsys patents = MPEG-LA ?
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: APP Lodsys patents = MPEG-LA ?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Comments
- Collapse -
Answer
You have it all wrong

Patents covering GIF have expired.
JPEG implementation doesn't require license fees, same goes for JPEG 2000 and PNG.
H264 license is payed for the decoder/encoder. Apple pays license fees for the codec that is part of OS X (both desktop and mobile). There is a type of H264 license that covers codecs that come with operating system and that other applications can use.
You do NOT need to pay license fees for H264 if you use the decoder that Apple supplies with the OS.

If you have a *paid* website and stream H264 videos then you would need to pay the license fees, but that is completely unrelated.

- Collapse -
Thanks for clarifying

I still think this is similar to the H264 license, the in-app updates are hosted on the developers servers (not Apple's) and they are generally a paid upgrade.

JPEG is not the same because they chose not to do so, not because they couldn't. Patent holders can demand separate licenses for hosting on servers, OS's, apps that use it and artists that create something in the format. Its kinda crazy.

- Collapse -
Don't think so
- Collapse -
Thanks for that. It should be interesting if

It will be interesting if some App developer will be indemnified from litigation results because they used Apple's API.

Or will any app that used this feature would be removed if Lodsys wins?
Bob

- Collapse -
private servers

I looked into developing in-app content and these updates are stored on developer servers, Apple takes care of the communication and payments between the apps, iTunes and the in-app content. Its all how to read the contract, this is not over yet.

http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#documentation/NetworkingInternet/Conceptual/StoreKitGuide/Introduction/Introduction.html

"Important: In App Purchase only collects payment. You
must provide any additional functionality, including unlocking built-in
features or downloading content from your own servers."

- Collapse -
The Last App standing wins?

Let's say you paid Lodsys off.

Let's say no one else did and they won.

Your app would be among the few available and folk would use your app because there was no other available.

You are the next Apple or MIcrosoft (or their servant?)
Bob

- Collapse -
Answer
different

I think this is different...

- Collapse -
Game over.

Apple did the right thing.

CNET Forums