Originally Posted by William
What makes you think that. The BDA collects royalties since it owners BD.
BDA absolutely does not do that. Big companies cannot get in the room, create a standard and set the price together in the same sitting.
And besides, companies may have patents that read on the standard, whether they were part of the specification process or not. MPEG-2 for example was used in BD format and I am pretty sure many of the companies involved in that standard did not set foot in a BDA meeting.
MPEG-LA is the organization tasked with creating a pool to collect fees. Should it succeed, then it will offer a patent portfolio on behalf of the companies who have chosen to participate. If some company decided to offer independent terms (like Philips recently did), and not be part of the final pool (Philips says they like to be), then they can collect fees also no matter what the pool says.
Sony can be completely bypassed for BD (other than being a BDA member and patent holder) because they don't own or control it.
There may be some confusion. There are two sets of patents. One is for the format, and the other for equipment used to make it. The latter is not part of any specification. One cannot duplicate what Sony has invented say, in wet embossing or PTM, and ignore compensating them for it. This is just how patents work and has nothing to do with BD format one way or the other.
So the question becomes whether they have created unique technology in creation of discs which has no alternative. If that is the case, then folks better be ready to pay what it takes to license or buy the equipment from them....