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."
Makes you wonder... (Score:5, Interesting)
The FCC is bungling DTV (Score:5, Interesting)
"It's lucky 3G spectrum wasn't available earlier in the United States or cell carriers would be dropping like flies. The bungled DTV system saved their ass.
The FCC assigned a royalty sharing organization, ATSC [atsc.org], to deliver a "unified" Digital Television system. But ATSC had no motivation to use the improved European-developed COFDM DTV system [dtg.org.uk] now the world-wide DTV standard. Unlike ATSC, it works. You can get it free over the air [freeview.co.uk] or in a bus. I believe former FCC director William Kennard is to blame. He didn't want to slow down the "lucrative" 3G auctions. Now we're stuck with a broken DTV system, the VHF auctions are delayed (again), and everyone lost...except the cellular carriers.
In the UK, all you need is a $99 box with rabbit ears [comet.co.uk]. US broadcasters are stuck. They may eventually be forced into PPV and soft porn since only rooftop antennas can pick up ATSC. The FCC let this happen. It's criminal negligence."
How much?!? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:bribery! (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, I don't think MIT turns out too many politicians - they turn out exclusively scientists and engineers. If it was politicians, I wouldn't care - we know they're a bunch of scoundrels - but what is truly frightening is that the ethics of scientists are supposedly held in higher regard than those of politicians. "Bias" is a much dirtier word in science than in politics. So to have MIT students see their advdisors and teachers getting rich off of graft is a very sad thing indeed.
One more reason I'm glad I didn't go to MIT for grad school.
Similar issues during DVD spec votes... (Score:5, Interesting)
I've seen people in the theatrical sound industry rakishly refer to Dolby as the "Microsoft of film audio".
How HDTV standards are chosen (Score:5, Interesting)
None. The date of the decision was cancelled, and a full boeing of americans went to Brasilia (the Capital) to bribe people. Now you see the potiticians saying that "oh,wehave to choose this based in the economy, not tecnical meriths... The americas will let us export TVs for the USA!" Ok. Let's see:
1>Brazil makes 2 TVs and sells one to USA and other to some brazilian, gets money of 1 from the USA and other is paid with brazillian cash.
2>Brazil sends 70% of boths TVs price to USA for "royalties".
Veeeery smart.
Re:The FCC is bungling DTV (Score:2, Interesting)
It's my understanding that congress... (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd rather wrestle a pit bull for a pork chop.
(btw, to confirm the "S" in Hollings' name I looked him up on google with:
riaa representative "back pocket" congress)
-dameron
Re:I love fragmented standards... (Score:1, Interesting)
Incompatible and nonextensible television standards suck. Changeover will fill up landfills. More energy will be sucked up as people buy products to replace their "governmentally mandated forced outdated" ones. I have 3 converters in my home, purchased at about $300 total, sucking up electricity to convert signals. I have 2 sets, one PAL, one NTSC, for viewing different signals.
Yet I am the exception, right you are. But let's look at the "others." If it were up to "most people", we'd still be using leaded gasoline. "Most people" object to the requirement to remove oil based paints from the market, despite water level contamination. "Most people" are fixated on fixing problems as they occur or after, not preventing them. What a popular means of transportation these days? The freakin SUV, and I see people driving in them singley, not hauling shit, not fool of folks, but a 2+ ton, 12' long vehicle carrying a 120 lb. female.
When changes occur, it's usually due to a set of intelligent folks that discover something. Then everyone sees it as a solution, not because it's sold, but because it solves a problem. Maybe they sought it themselves, but because it's there. Infection? Penicillan. Communication? Phone. These days, the loner researcher is gone and so-called solutions are "marketed" more. You honestly think a swiffer wejet is better than a bleepin sponge?
We do things now by concensus, by committee. And they are suppose to replace the happenstance, haphazard methodologies of the best, and do so at least as past history has shown us--here, pick the damn best technology.
Whether MIT did or didn't is up to debate. I think they did. But they should have done so purely and only on the laurels of that technology, not because they were getting a direct payoff.
Furthermore, and probaby more importantly, if they do such a thing, they should lose their status as a place of higher education and should still be reclassified as a corporation.