In the past 18 months, I have provided ample information on how MPEG was established, how it works, what it has done and is doing, and why it is different than other committees. In the last article Why is there a battle around MPEG?, I have identified another point of divergence. Patent declarations that relate to MPEG standards are 57.5% of all patent declarations submitted to ISO. MPEG is special because the next ISO committee in terms of number of patent declarations submitted to ISO has 13% share. JTC 1 itself has 81% of all patent declarations submitted to ISO.
In this article I would like to explore another difference, the nature of MPEG standards vs other JTC 1 standards.
Let’s start from an extended version of the table where the % refers to patent declarations submitted to ISO for all JTC 1 standards.
|Committee||Title||# Pat. Decl.||%|
|MPEG||Coding of Moving Pictures and Audio||1857||69.76|
|SC 31||Automatic identification and data capture techniques||399||14.99|
|SC 27||Information security, cybersecurity and privacy protection||125||4.70|
|SC 25||Interconnection of information technology equipment||92||3.46|
|JPEG||Coding of digital representations of images||80||3.01|
|SC 17||Cards and security devices for personal identification||56||2.10|
|SC 23||Digitally Recorded Media for Information Interchange and Storage||22||0.83|
|SC 6||Telecommunications and information exchange between systems||22||0.83|
|SC 34||Document description and processing languages||3||0.11|
|SC 35||User interfaces||2||0.08|
|SC 28||Office equipment||1||0.04|
|SC 36||Information technology for learning, education and training||1||0.04|
We see that Data (MPEG, SC 31 and JPEG), Security (SC 27), Communication (SC 25 abd SC 6) and Physical Media (SC 17 and SC 23) have a number of patent declarations expressed with more than 1 decimal digit.
This should be no surprise. At the risk of being criticised, I would state that the first 8 committees are not typical Information Technology (IT) committees, but Information and Communication Technology (ICT) committees because they handle information that does not only reside in a device, and hence is not typically the object of a standards, but is expected to move between devices. For instance there is no single patent declaration for SC 24 Computer graphics, image processing and environmental data representation.
Indeed, save for the first 8 committees in the table, the main target for standardisation in the other committees is architectures, frameworks, principles, guidelines etc.
Some JTC 1 standards are indeed developed outside of JTC 1. There are many organisations who request, e.g., JTC 1 to become Suppliers of Publicly Available Specifications (PAS). Those organisations who are granted that status have a preferential channel to make their specifications International Standards.
The Virtual Reality Modeling Language (VRML) was a PAS. JTC 1/SC 24 took VRML97 and made it ISO/IEC 14772-1:1997 Information Technology — Computer Graphics and Image Processing — The Virtual Reality Modeling Language — Part 1: Functional Specification and UTF-8 Encoding.
The justification for a making an ISO standard from a PAS is that the PAS can be developed with greater freedom and at a higher speed. The ISO process puts an ISO stamp on the PAS without changing the specification. Again at the risk of being criticised, I think that standards are too important to make them international standards by letting them cut corners.
MPEG has received a limited number of PAS with a request to convert them to ISO standards, but done so for none. MPEG has issued calls to which some organisations that had produced PAS’s have responded. MPEG has developed standards based on those responses. An example is MPEG-M to which the Digital Media Project has been a major contributor. This is fine. The way technology is developed should be unconstrained, but there should be a single route through which technologies become international standards.
The Alliance for Open Media (AOM) specification known as AV1 is a PAS. One day, but not today, AV1 may became an MPEG standard.
MPEG is an exception, the question is whether it will continue to be so.
Posts in next thread
Posts in this thread
- The MPEG exception
- Why is there a battle around MPEG?
- Strategic planning for MPEG
- Leonardo: who I am, what I have done so far, what I plan to do next
- The value of MPEG standards
- Design and build the future of MPEG
- Another view at MPEG’s strengths and weaknesses
- An “unexpected” MPEG media type: fonts
- The future of visual information coding standards
- Can MPEG survive? And if so, how?
- Quality, more quality and more more quality
- Developing MPEG standards in the viral pandemic age
- The impact of MPEG on the media industry
- MPEG standards, MPEG software and Open Source Software
- The MPEG Metamorphoses
- National interests, international standards and MPEG
- Media, linked media and applications
- Standards and quality
- How to make standards adopted by industry
- MPEG status report (Jan 2020)
- MPEG, 5 years from now
- Finding the driver of future MPEG standards
- The true history of MPEG’s first steps
- Put MPEG on trial
- An action plan for the MPEG Future community
- Which company would dare to do it?
- The birth of an MPEG standard idea
- More MPEG Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats
- The MPEG Future Manifesto
- What is MPEG doing these days?
- MPEG is a big thing. Can it be bigger?
- MPEG: vision, execution,, results and a conclusion
- Who “decides” in MPEG?
- What is the difference between an image and a video frame?
- MPEG and JPEG are grown up
- Standards and collaboration
- The talents, MPEG and the master
- Standards and business models
- On the convergence of Video and 3D Graphics
- Developing standards while preparing the future
- No one is perfect, but some are more accomplished than others
- Einige Gespenster gehen um in der Welt – die Gespenster der Zauberlehrlinge
- Does success breed success?
- Dot the i’s and cross the t’s
- The MPEG frontier
- Tranquil 7+ days of hard work
- Hamlet in Gothenburg: one or two ad hoc groups?
- The Mule, Foundation and MPEG
- Can we improve MPEG standards’ success rate?
- Which future for MPEG?
- Why MPEG is part of ISO/IEC
- The discontinuity of digital technologies
- The impact of MPEG standards
- Still more to say about MPEG standards
- The MPEG work plan (March 2019)
- MPEG and ISO
- Data compression in MPEG
- More video with more features
- Matching technology supply with demand
- What would MPEG be without Systems?
- MPEG: what it did, is doing, will do
- The MPEG drive to immersive visual experiences
- There is more to say about MPEG standards
- Moving intelligence around
- More standards – more successes – more failures
- Thirty years of audio coding and counting
- Is there a logic in MPEG standards?
- Forty years of video coding and counting
- The MPEG ecosystem
- Why is MPEG successful?
- MPEG can also be green
- The life of an MPEG standard
- Genome is digital, and can be compressed
- Compression standards and quality go hand in hand
- Digging deeper in the MPEG work
- MPEG communicates
- How does MPEG actually work?
- Life inside MPEG
- Data Compression Technologies – A FAQ
- It worked twice and will work again
- Compression standards for the data industries
- 30 years of MPEG, and counting?
- The MPEG machine is ready to start (again)
- IP counting or revenue counting?
- Business model based ISO/IEC standards
- Can MPEG overcome its Video “crisis”?
- A crisis, the causes and a solution
- Compression – the technology for the digital age