TABLE OF CONTENTS Most certainly, the next argument from MPEG-4 critics would be the acquisition cost and licensing aspects. Well, it's true, nothing comes for free; proprietary formats also have their price tag. In addition, one must clearly and categorically differentiate between patent licensing and technology licensing.
In an open standard, a number of patents are utilized to achieve a particular result. But the technologies or procedures underlying these patents first had to be created by someone. Creation means that research, developing, and testing were undertaken by a number of organizations, which in turn could also be characterized in terms of resources. Resources come at a price. Therefore, it is only logical that the patent holders should get their share of the action. In MPEG-2, this is illustrated quite well and indeed has proven to be a scheme that works. In addition to patent fees in open standards, the technology provider also would like to see some return on his investment in developing standard-conforming products. Thus, open standards come with a combination of patent and technology licensing.
A bit later, the licensing aspects of MPEG-4, which have been widely criticized, will be considered in much more detail, but one fact to keep in mind at this stage is that with such a vast number of possible uses for MPEG-4, it is virtually impossible to create an "all-encompassing" licensing scenario that takes on all possible business models.
With proprietary formats, it is a bit different since only technology licensing fees apply.
