[QUOTE="shoeman12"] you can't seriously sit there and deny what you posted. "This is about whether Sony pays M$ anything for use of VC-1. The answer is no, Sony does not pay M$ a dime for using VC-1."shoeman12
I never denied anything. It's the M$ fanboys that are trying to back peddle on their statements that M$ "owns" and "developed" VC-1. :lol:
wow, this just keeps getting better and better. "Nope, I'm saying everyone who said M$ developed and owns VC-1 is incorrect" just keep going back on your statements, we'll pretend you didn't make them from now on.
uh, I've said the same thing again. Let me say it again so that you can say I'm saying something different yet again when I'm not:
Everyone who said M$ developed and owns VC-1 is incorrect. M$ did not develop VC-1 by itself nor did it ever own VC-1.
[QUOTE="shoeman12"] so what you're saying is that nobody ever actually said sony pays microsoft for the use of VC-1, and you're just making that up.shoeman12
Nope, I'm saying everyone who said M$ developed and owns VC-1 is incorrect. The huge amount of patents that went into VC-1 is owned by a list of companies who comprise the MPEG LA. M$ never owned VC-1 exclusively, and to say M$ developed or owned VC-1 is laughable.
you can't seriously sit there and deny what you posted. "This is about whether Sony pays M$ anything for use of VC-1. The answer is no, Sony does not pay M$ a dime for using VC-1."
I never denied anything. It's the M$ fanboys that are trying to back peddle on their statements that M$ "owns" and "developed" VC-1. :lol:
[QUOTE="-Snooze-"]No. It's about you thinking Sony would be stupid enought o refuse MS licensing. It's about yous eeing some grand scheme super strategy that dont exist. Mr Lawyer :)-Snooze-
Find where I said Sony would refuse M$ licensing, Mr. "I know the inner thought processes and politics of the BDA." :)
I said "thinking" as you said, i know the inner working of your mind. Now Mr Lawyer, explain Sony and the rest od the BDA's super plan, and how refusing MS admission will be profitable.
[QUOTE="shoeman12"] NOBODY in this thread said they did! that is not what this is about, you're imagining other posts for the sake of arguing.shoeman12
By saying M$ "owns" VC-1, it's the same as saying that Sony has to get permission from M$ or even have to pay to use VC-1. M$ does not own VC-1, nor does Sony have to get any kind of permission from M$ to use VC-1.
so what you're saying is that nobody ever actually said sony pays microsoft for the use of VC-1, and you're just making that up.
Nope, I'm saying everyone who said M$ developed and owns VC-1 is incorrect. The huge amount of patents that went into VC-1 is owned by a list of companies who comprise the MPEG LA. M$ never owned VC-1 exclusively, and to say M$ developed or owned VC-1 is laughable.
No. It's about you thinking Sony would be stupid enought o refuse MS licensing. It's about yous eeing some grand scheme super strategy that dont exist. Mr Lawyer :)-Snooze-
Find where I said Sony would refuse M$ licensing, Mr. "I know the inner thought processes and politics of the BDA." :)
[QUOTE="shoeman12"] where did i say sony pays microsoft for using it's codecs? again, the whole world doesn't revolve around sony. microsoft earns royalties on blu ray discs (just like every other licensor), i never said the money was from sony.shoeman12
Where did I say that you did. This is about whether Sony pays M$ anything for use of VC-1. The answer is no, Sony does not pay M$ a dime for using VC-1.
NOBODY in this thread said they did! that is not what this is about, you're imagining other posts for the sake of arguing.
By saying M$ "owns" VC-1, it's the same as saying that Sony has to get permission from M$ or even have to pay to use VC-1. M$ does not own VC-1, nor does Sony have to get any kind of permission from M$ to use VC-1.
do you even understand what you're saying? i never said microsoft OWNED a codec, i said they developed one and earn royalties on it (truth). your post even reveals microroft is one of those companies, you either didn't read the whole list or ignored that.
shoeman12
It's called "context," buddy. This thread is about Sony having to pay M$ for codecs, which is clearly not the case. The point of a patent pool such as BDA or MPEG LA is to allow these companies who each own various patents used in something such as DVD or Blu-ray to create a streamlined licensing format so that you don't have to go around getting licenses for the hundreds if not thousands of individual patents that go into these things. Sony definitely does not pay a royalty to M$ of any kind for the use of VC-1, because Sony is also a licensor of VC-1, which gives Sony the right to use VC-1 without approval from MPEG LA.
where did i say sony pays microsoft for using it's codecs? again, the whole world doesn't revolve around sony. microsoft earns royalties on blu ray discs (just like every other licensor), i never said the money was from sony.
Where did I say that you did. This is about whether Sony pays M$ anything for use of VC-1. The answer is no, Sony does not pay M$ a dime for using VC-1.
Log in to comment