ADDING LINKS IS TEMPORARILY BLOCKED - if you want to add a link, just put a space in it so that it doesn't work. The admin will then fix the link for you very quickly. This will be fixed as soon as I have the new spam blocking system in place.

SitemapCountriesWhy abolish?Law proposalsStudiesCase lawPatent office case lawLawsuits


Revision as of 08:30, 3 August 2011 by (Talk)

Jump to: navigation, search
(For the general video codec problem see: Audio-video patents)

MPEG LA is an organisation (which could be called a patent cartel) which holds a collection of software patents which it claims are essential for the implementation of MPEG video formats including H.264. MPEG LA is in no way affiliated with the MPEG standards group.

MPEG LA lists over 1,000 patents, held by 29 companies[1] divided between 57 countries which they claim are necessary to implement MPEG video formats.[2]

MPEG LA's patents are the reason H.264 was excluded from the HTML5 specification.


Details of their patent thickets

MPEG LA is the licensing authority for a thicket of over 1,000 patents, held by 29 companies. MPEG LA claims that 1,000 of these patents must be licensed in order to use the common H.264 video format.[3] which it claims are requried for use of MPEG video formats. The holders of these patents include Columbia University, Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute of Korea (ETRI), France Télécom, Fujitsu, LG Electronics, Matsushita (Panasonic), Mitsubishi, Microsoft, Motorola, Nokia, Philips, Robert Bosch GmbH, Samsung, Sharp, Sony, Toshiba, and Victor Company of Japan (JVC).[4] The last MPEG LA listed patents don't expire until 2027 in the US.[5][6]

As of February 2010, MPEG LA lists 639 companies which are paying this patent tax.[7]

Microsoft is both a large owner, with 75 patents in this pool, and is also a large licensee, paying about twice as much to MPEG LA as they receive in royalties.[8]

MPEG LA's patent aggression

Threatening WebM, VP8, and Ogg Theora

(See: VP8 and WebM and Ogg Theora)

MPEG LA has said that it considers Ogg Theora to be infringing their patents, and that they are looking into building a list of patents for which they would demand royalties for WebM.[9]

A free licence for almost nobody

In August 2010, MPEG LA announced that they would not use their patents against people distributing video non-commercially over the Internet.[10][11]

However, this does not permit the distribution of software to play or create videos,[12] and would not apply to a webpage with ads.[13]

MPEG LA isn't the only group you have to pay

AT&T[14] and Philips[15], both claim to have further patents required for implementations of MPEG video.

It is also possible that other patent holders are preparing a patent ambush.

Avoiding H.264

Campaigns to avoid H.264 generally focus on encouraging the use the Ogg Theora video format and, recently, on the WebM format.

Another possibility is to use software from 20 years ago, such as the ITU h.261 video format, some parts of which were defined in, or before, November 1988[1]. The 1988 spec had parts that were not defined. The 1990 H.261 spec filled in these parts[2].

Kudos to you! I hadn't thugoht of that!

External links


  8. Microsoft receives back from MPEG LA less than half the amount for the patent rights that it contributes
  9. "Google open video codec may face patent clash". "Yes. In view of the marketplace uncertainties regarding patent licensing needs for such technologies, [...] in accessing essential patent rights for VP8 as well as other codecs, and we are looking into the prospects of doing so." 

This wiki is part of the End Software Patents (ESP) campaign (donate). For more information, see:
>> (Main ESP website) <<
>> (News) <<

This wiki is publicly editable. (See: It's a pool of information, not a statement of ESP's views or policies, so no permission is required. Add your knowledge! (See: Help:How to make a good contribution)