Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

Question

APP Lodsys patents = MPEG-LA ?

May 22, 2011 1:07AM PDT

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

- Collapse -
Answer
You have it all wrong
May 22, 2011 11:01PM PDT

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
May 23, 2011 12:15AM PDT

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
May 23, 2011 5:15AM PDT
- Collapse -
Thanks for that. It should be interesting if
May 23, 2011 5:34AM PDT

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
May 23, 2011 7:14AM PDT

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?
May 23, 2011 8:07AM PDT

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
May 23, 2011 6:04PM PDT

I think this is different...

- Collapse -
Game over.
May 24, 2011 3:21AM PDT

Apple did the right thing.