Update on G.729 licensing. 1. The Sipro licensing price: The price is a one-time US $9,884 for 1000 ports. Once this is paid the "licensee" is granted 1000 ports to play with and distribute. However, the licensee must publish back to Sipro annually how many ports are actually in-use/have been distributed. In the event the licensee is using more than the 1000 ports Sipro will charge accordingly per port over the 1000. 2. The Sipro license covers only the essential patents of France Telecom, Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Nippon Telephone and Telegraph Corporation, Universite de Sherbrooke (The G.729 Consortium). 3. Steve was quite right, there are other companies to deal with: Alcatel-Lucent, NEC and Nokia (according to the official patent call). My attorneys are checking this out but for now it appears as though their patents have to do with a specific "process" of transcoding that may not be concern as the "process" seems to have more to do with their respective equipment and DSP use and would not likely be infringed by a more generic implementation as suggested by ITU-T (each responded to the patent call between 1995 and 2000). 4. I've contacted Qodec. It's pretty clear that they are doing what I suggested earlier. They've built a G.729A/B codec in distributable library form and are "planning" to obtain licensing via Sipro. The cost structure provided to me seems high - higher than Digium to be sure. None-the-less it is significantly less expensive than re-inventing the wheel.
At this time I'm pressing Qodec for implementation and indemnification dates. Has anyone on this list build a G.729 implementation using the Qodec API? It would sure be useful to know if it works. Jac Barben wrote: > My attorneys checked this out pretty carefully. Sipro represented, in > writing, that they are the only proxy for all known owners of g.729 > annex a and annex b. None-the-less, I'll forward your concerns back > to my attorneys for a double-double on this. > > I'm actually expecting a written "legal opinion" on the matter this week. > > J > > > > Steve Underwood wrote: >> Jac Barben wrote: >> >>> All: >>> >>> Because G.729 is so important to my world, I've contacted each of >>> Intel and Sipro. For the benefit of others that may need licensing >>> here are the costs and contacts: >>> >>> Intel: >>> http://www.intel.com/cd/software/products/asmo-na/eng/download/locations/index.htm#perflib >>> >>> >>> $199 one time and $80 a year. >>> >> This part is trivial. :-) >> >>> Sipro: http://sipro.com >>> Sipro is handling the G.729/G.723 patents for all those that claim >>> have claimed ownership: France Telecom, Mitsubishi, Electric >>> Corporation, Nippon Telephone and Telegraph Corporation,Universite >>> de Sherbrooke (The G.729 Consortium), NEC and Nokia. >>> Typically Sipro charges an annual fee per port of use. The killer >>> here is the minimum - 1000 ports. Your entry fee is: US $9,884. >>> >> Its worse than that. NEC and Nokia are not actually represented by >> Sipro, and you must pay them separately. All Sipro do is tell you who >> you need to contact. NEC and Nokia want about as much as Sipro, so >> you can more or less double the prices Sipro quote. Unless something >> has changed recently, the price you quote is an illusion brought on >> by the confusing way they present things. I seem to remember it works >> out somewhat higher, and then you double it for the NEC and Nokia part. >> >>> I'm pretty certain that I'm going to have to step up to these >>> costs. To that end, I am thinking of building a library of the >>> Intel/Sipro work for use with OpenPBX and distributing the libraries >>> for commercial use, as permitted by the Intel/Sipro licensing, at a >>> fee similar to the structure defined by Digium. >>> Is there any interest here or am I the only one with commercial use >>> plans? >>> >> We know this needs sorting out. A telephony platform without G.729 >> just won't fly at this time. The Freeswitch people have the same >> issue, and we hope we can work with them to a mutual solution. There >> is a company, whose web site name I forgot, which is providing G.729 >> for small users like us. There web site makes it look like they are >> dead, but the Freeswitch guys have been in touch with them, and it >> seems they are still active. >> >> Since we have plenty to do right now, I've just been waiting to see >> what Freeswitch dredges up as a workable solution. We intend to >> support these things through pipes, with the transcoder running as a >> separate process. That completely avoids licencing issues with our >> pure GPL core, and the overhead is no big deal when you compare it >> against the compute cost of the codec. >> >> Regards, >> Steve >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Openpbx-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.openpbx.org/mailman/listinfo/openpbx-dev >> >> > _______________________________________________ Openpbx-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openpbx.org/mailman/listinfo/openpbx-dev
