An analysis of all recent MPEG-4-patents supporting the MPEG-LA
-> [ Patents | in action | News ]
All patents in the list of the MPEG Licence Association applicable to the MPEG4 format have been examined and analysed. After intensive study of relevant literature and more than 100 patents of the involved companies one can say now: "If one carefully compares these patents to the prior art, he does not find any invention in said list which shows a sufficient inventive step. Therefore no granted patent in the list is justified.
See the complete report (40 pages) on:
The list of the relevant patents see: http://www.mpegla.com/m4s/m4s-att1.pdf
Apple Computer, Inc.
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute
- KR 248,404
France Télécom, S.A.
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.
- JP 3,162,110
- KR 239,837
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
- CN ZL 97112956.8
Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
SUMMARY of the MPEG-LA-Analysis:
After studying relevant literature and more than 100 patents intensively (including all EP- and WIPO-patent applications), one definitely can say:
Compared with the prior art of technology, there is no invention existing in said MPEG-4-list showing sufficient step of invention to justify:
a) the granting of just only one patent; b) any IEEE- standardization basing upon those patents; and c) resulting of any international DRM ("Digital Rights Standard") thereupon!
Besides, the patent claims do not fulfil any prerequisites of article No. 52 of the EPA-statutory : they unexceptionally describe programs for computers (rules and algorithms for operating known data processing equipment). Computer-implemented concepts; nothing more.
Most of all "inventive steps" in said patent claims are well-known time-domain, but packed into nebulous or indefinable semantics, such as:
"*Parameter*", associated to a "code-block" that represents and indicates, whatever one could imagine, (PHILIPS, see claim 1 of EP0460751A2)
"*control signal*", which is "indicative" for all sorts of something.. (PHILIPS, see claim 1 of parallel German patent DE69127504C0)
"*portions of signal*", made up by an "algorithm" to a code (PHILIPS, see claim 1 of US 5,844,867)
"*data signals*", which make up "*quantization rules*" or/btw. "*quantization parameters*" for the coding of objects (France Telecom, see claim 1,2 of EP0995170B1 or claim 1 of US 6,075,901)
"*A set of data*" and/or "*instructions*", how to transmit or process time-relevant data (MultiMedia) in a well-known manner..(Apple, see claim 1 of US 6,134,243)
Some "inventions" are re-patenting matter. Technologies, that have been described already 20 years ago; simply implemented and/or added into new patent-claims to pretend "NOVELTY":
- "*adressing*" of data packets for identification (Philips)
- "*time stamp*" or "*elapse time relation*" to data bytes or data packets (SUN Microsystems)
- "*multiplexing*" (MUXING) of time-relevant data oder other data (Samsung)
Other cases are odd and peculiar. Patented technology should prove an "inventive step"; an improvement. Surprisingly, ETRI got a patent on a "degradation"...
"*graceful degradation* (ETRI, see US 6,707,944)
Related to such technologies - known since decades - and to nebulously and undefinably formulated semantic monsters, dozens of additional patent claims got based upon. PYRAMIDS of new patents and patent-families became founded thereupon:
Finally, let us analyse patent applications published before 1997 regarding those types of "prior art": Inputing the term "*multiplex* , a professional patent search database shows 52 690 
matches until May 1, 1997!
On inputing "*data block addressing*": 944 matches; on "*frame addressing*": 130 matches !
On inputing the word "*time stamp*" 2 962 matches, on "*time address*" 813 matches; on "*elapse time*" 14 373 matches!
When inputing the term "*data packetising*" you get 6 354 matches !
