Dolby Buys MIT's DTV Vote for $30 Million 192
An anonymous reader writes "MIT's campus newspaper, The Tech is reporting that the university will be receiving $30 million from Dolby Laboratories. This payment is in return for MIT's vote on the "Grand Alliance" committee responsible for choosing the audio standard for digital television (DTV). Dolby also appears to have paid off Zenith, another committee member. The professor representing MIT on the committee stands to receive $8 million personally.
But here's where it gets truly odd. After dutifully voting for the Dolby standard, MIT attempted to collect on the bribe, but Dolby refused to pay. So, MIT sued to collect. In the end, MIT and Dolby settled out of court.
Says The Tech, "There's clearly a conflict of interest," [MIT's Jack] Turner, [associate director of the Technology Licensing Office] says, but, "it can't be avoided. MIT's reputation as being pure... in its academic evaluation of things is very important." Yeah sure."
It's so funny when people even ADMIT it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently not.
Whats the point? (Score:4, Insightful)
I was under the impression that MIT was there to represent the people.
American origin a factor? (Score:4, Insightful)
bribery! (Score:3, Insightful)
i dunno, but it sounds like a good idea to me... (Score:2, Insightful)
Which sounds like a pretty good idea to me. I mean, why have competing standards and go through all the expense of that when they're nearly the same, and one side is willing to be bought out and move on?
Re:It's so funny when people even ADMIT it... (Score:3, Insightful)
And MIT settled for 30 million dollars??! I would have auctioned my vote off! Get Phillips and Dolby in a bidding match? Sky's the limit!
Haha. I hope Lim feels like a greedy idiot. "Man, if I'd been a little more principled, I'd still have my reputation, and if I'd been a little less principled, I'd be the seventh wealthiest man on the planet. As it is, all I've got is my lousy 8 million bucks, glaven..."
=)
This is outragous (Score:2, Insightful)
Whats even worst is that they took them to _court_ over it - am i the only one that things this is disgusting? what the fuck is the point? where are we headed if we can clearly, publicly buy off votes and even bring people to court when the bribe isint paid?
Re:What the hell is the point of a comittee? (Score:5, Insightful)
MIT has shown us the true 3 step business model:
1) Build a seemingly immaculate and incorruptable reputation.
2) Prostitute everything you worked so hard at.
3) Profit!!!
Re:Royalty Payment, not out-and-out bribe (Score:3, Insightful)
Please read the article more carefully. Dolby is paying MIT $30M in royalties FOR A USELESS TECHNOLOGY! If MIT's own DTV standard had been chosen, they would have earned substantial royalties, but since they sold out to Dolby, they missed the boat. But, Dolby paid them anyway! That's why it's vote-buying.
Secret MIT/Dolby Deal Sours the Standard (Score:5, Insightful)
From the Tech article:
"It was very closely held information that there was an agreement between MIT and Dolby," Rast said. "It wasn't something that everybody knew about at the time," he added. "It wasn't common knowledge."
"I think the other members [of the Alliance] would have been quite upset" if they had known about such an agreement, said Joel Brinkley, the author of Defining Vision, a comprehensive account of the HDTV standardization process, and a reporter for The New York Times.
"I was not aware of it, and I was speaking to all of them," he said. "Many millions of dollars were at stake. The contract for Dolby was one of the best things ever to happen to that company. They are now the audio system for every television that will ever be sold," he said.
Reaping what ya sow. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a clear example of the bastardization of higher learning because of the influence of money. 2+2=4 even if the boys at Pfizer want it to be 5... It may be tempting sometimes to come up with the answer of 5, when somebody is paying you multi millions to do so.
Perhaps it is a good opportunity/time to re-evaluate the funding of research and development at universities. A proposal I would like to see is that government heavily subsidizes the research, but all the profits from products that come from the research are plowed right back into universities general funds, paying for more research as well as lower tuitions, and more outright scholarships.
Re:Royalty Payment, not out-and-out bribe (Score:5, Insightful)
Pot, kettle, black. Which parts of these paragraphs did you not understand?
The article clearly makes the point that the MIT system (the one that Jin invented, I assume) was technically superior, but Jin and Dolby carved out a deal between themselves that gave both Jin, Dolby and MIT a cut of the winnings, regardless of who won.
Once the financial issues were stitched up, Jin was free to cast his vote with Dolby, despite independent tests showing that the MIT system was superior -- and his allies appear to be arguing that his motivation was patriotic rather than financial.
Now in future, would you please not lecture other people unless you've read and understood the article yourself?
A mockery! (Score:5, Insightful)
There is absolutely no point in giving MIT another vote on any panel. They'll just use it like a cash windfall which it's NOT supposed to be. We could actually sell standards control to the highest bidder and put the cash to some use, we don't because it's obviously a bad thing. MIT doing this by proxy is no better, in fact it's worse because they betray a trust.
Wasn't a deal the whole point? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I love fragmented standards... (Score:5, Insightful)
The vast-- and I truly mean vast-- majority of people will never know that the United States, Europe, Asia, France, and wherever-the-heck-else have incompatible television signal formats. For obvious reasons you can't receive Asian terrestrial broadcasts in Europe anyway, so for most people the issue simply never comes up. It's just not that big a deal.
Re:bribery! (Score:1, Insightful)
No, we'd call it a campaign contribution.
Re:The FCC is bungling DTV (Score:5, Insightful)
COFDM has it's advantages, but 8VSB was chosen for good reason - stronger signals over longer distances at the same power levels. This is a valid decision given the sub-urban nature of US viewers. CODFM is a convenient solution for multi-path issues in urban areas, but those advantages were rendered moot last year with the introduction of 3rd generation chipsets that reduce multi-path interference.
Also, the European system ISN'T HIGH DEF. It's 16x9 standard def. It's comparable to our satellite and digital cable receivers.
ATSC receivers will be the same price ($99) by next Christmas thanks to the FCC requirement for ATSC tuners to be included in sets larger than 34 inches. The cost of the chip sets are about $100 now. They should drop dramatically (to about $35) now that volumes will be increasing.
The COFDM vs. 8VSB debate was ended 18 months ago among the DTV adopters. Put it to rest.
Re:bribery! (Score:3, Insightful)
No. We'd call Dolby a Special Interest Group, and call the money a "campaign contribution".
Same thing, different labels.
Re:How much?!? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:It's so funny when people even ADMIT it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Q. Why are the politics in higher education so dirty and cutthroat?
A. Because the stakes are so small.
Re:American origin a factor? (Score:2, Insightful)
If the United States mandated a digital television standard that required the use of an audio (or video) standard based on foreign IP, it would not play well politically, and would have the effect of leeching more money out of this country. It's bad enough that there are no domestic producers of television sets left in the U.S. Since this country seems best at generating IP rather than manufacturing, licensing fees are a good way to funnel some of the wealth back to U.S. institutions.
In response to someone in another branch of this thread who chalked this up to nationalism, I would counter that this move is no more nationalistic than similar technology decisions made in countries like Japan or France.
Re:How HDTV standards are chosen (Score:1, Insightful)
If Brazil makes 2 TVs and sells 1 domestically and exports the other, then it gains export revenue equal to the price of one TV.
However, if it has to pay 70% royalties on both TVs to U.S. , then its nett exports is actually -0.4 of the price of a TV.
Also, exports and diversification of exports are not ends in themselves. They're means to and end, namely economic progress. It is generally a good idea for a country to increase exports and to increase diversification of its exports, but it is not always a good thing. One situation when it is not a good idea is when the item to be exported costs more in import costs than it would garner in export revenues.
Re:bribery! (Score:2, Insightful)
Try looking slightly beyond the boundaries of the U.S. Having accomplished that initial feat, I suppose the name Netanyahu might ring a bell. Or the names of past presidents of Colombia, Puerto Rico, or Costa Rica. Or, come to think of it, the names of significant non-Presidential U.S. politicians.
Not to be an ass, but... The MIT paper "The Tech" has a running list of notable politicians from MIT, for those who want to do 30 seconds of research before posting. It is not comprehensive, but it's a good start.
One more reason I'm glad I didn't go to MIT for grad school.
If you're worried about problems like MIT's current flap, then I suppose you didn't go anywhere for grad school. Name a significant research institution that doesn't occasionally find ways to put itself in this situation.
Gimme a break.