Please email [email protected] for bulk purchases of licence keys.paulslocum wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2018 8:43 pmIf it's not going to be free, then I really wish the Raspberry Pi foundation would improve their license purchasing system. For the project I'm currently working on, we would have purchased hundreds of licenses. But it's just too cumbersome to create a spreadsheet of every Raspberry Pi we're planning to use, wait for a reply, and then somehow apply all those unlock codes. There really needs to be an API or some way to buy them already unlocked.
I was specifically referring to the bulk purchase process in my comment. It's adds too much complication to be worth it for us. We just decided to do without MPEG2 support (maybe we'll add software MPEG2 decoding later)Please email [email protected] for bulk purchases of licence keys.
Clearly you are NOT sensitive to this request because here you are banging on about it yet again....
RichardS wrote: ↑Sun May 27, 2018 6:41 amSince the explanation given above relates to MPEG LA licensing royalties, I will be contacting them directly to get clarification as to whether they wish to be a party to fraudulently collecting royalty fees for patents which have expired here in the USA - I hope that they will be amenable to reason and agree that the collection of MPEG2 licensing royalties in countries where the remaining patents in the pool DO NOT APPLY could be interpreted as FRAUD, and subject's them to considerable legal jeopardy.
If you don't think that MPEG LA takes note of such things, consider that they stubbornly refused to adjust licensing fees as the number of applicable patents in the pool still in force decreased till, magically in 2002 when, not coincidentally this case was launched against the international DRAM cartel here in the U.S.. I guess it's kind of hard to ignore 310 Million in total fines, plus actual jail time for the guy in charge.
MPEG LA has already been listed as a defendant in this case filed in United States District Court Northern District of New York, where the plaintiff, Haier America lists a litany of complaints against MPEG LA and several of it's members, including that they padded the patent pool with bogus non-essential patents to fraudulently extend the life of the pool, and the royalties received by MPEG LA, and MPEG LA members, and also acted in restraint of trade and engaged in monopolistic practices by making it difficult or impossible to negotiate patent royalty agreements outside MPEG LA. The above linked page has a pdf file of the actual court filing, which makes very interesting reading for anyone interested.
So long story short, I don't think MPEG LA is going to have much stomach for charging bogus royalties on expired patent technology, at least not just now, given their present legal exposure.
If MPEG LA says to STOP charging this fee in their name in countries were it does not apply, may I assume that you will stop?
I am sensitive to the fact that the mods and representatives of the Pi Foundation have requested not to have further open discussion of this topic here in the forum - so by all means, please PM me if an alternate solution is already in the works, as I have no wish to stir up and complicate the situation unnecessarily.
Users browsing this forum: travisfarmer and 32 guests