Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Vorbis development, status & patent issues (Read 66597 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #125 –
Quote
Actually, all of audio coding patents will definitely expire after 20 years, so even the awful-patent-protected-not-free-not-GPL-yada-yada MP3 will be free of any patent fees

Isnt that roughly the age of some of the MP2 stuff that Frank had mentioned MPC may infringe upon?

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #126 –
Quote
Will compression software developers "indemnify" users against dataloss due to bugs? No? Why not? WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?! <scary music>

what compression?  It goes for most software of any type.. the usual phrase is something like "This software is not warranted to be useful for any particular purpose."

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #127 –
Oh come on, name me a technology which has not been marketted with statements which can be questioned. Every single thing has been marketted with exaggerations:

- 128kbps MP3 is CD quality!
- Linux is completely free!
- Microsoft emphasizes on security!
- OpenSSH is secure!

So a new day, a new software to pick on for bending the truth slightly, and today it is Vorbis's turn to be scrutinize.

Really, I see 3 different groups of people reacting to this "vorbis is patent-free" marketing.

1. People who really believe that Vorbis is completely patent-free and won't accept any challenges to that patent-free 'fact'.
2. People who can see a marketing device for what it is and are able to judge and accept what "patent-free" really means.
3. People who condemn "patent-free" as a plain and deliberate lie and announce that xiph.org are out to cheat the whole world.

I see myself as a realist, and I believe that "patent-free" really means
1. Will not knowingly infringe on any known patents
2. Will find ways around known patents
3. Will make reasonable effort to do a patent search to ensure that none are being infringed on

Now, I don't know exactly how many people take a default position to trust a statement and how many people will take a default position to distrust statements. For me, I can take the default position to trust that xiph.org follows the 3 points I highlighted above, at least until I see reason that they have betrayed such trust.

I generally feel that most people take a similar default position... however there will be those who take the default position to believe that these people are lying to them and will inform everyone who will listen to them to take this default position to. It's not hard to figure out that these people have their own agenda for getting people to take a default untrusting position.

For those interested, I actually talked to Emmett about two years ago asking "how are you so sure that you don't infringe on any patents?" on irc. I'll probably try to see if I can find his response in my logs when I get home (doubt so, I think it was on my old old work pc). But as far as I can remember it went something like:

Emmett: We had (2 or 3) lawyers look through everything and they've found nothing so far which can be used against Vorbis
me: Wow.. wouldn't that be expensive
Emmett: Not really, they were in-house lawyers (or maybe he said there were lawyers in the xiph organisation)

I know this won't stop some people saying "Liar! They never bothered to do a search and simply said that they did", but I think the neutrals can see that there is a good chance Xiph people have made some effort to do some patent searches.

Anyway, I would also like to see Xiph's answer to the FHg's patent which was brought up.

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #128 –
Quote
- 128kbps MP3 is CD quality!
- Linux is completely free!
- Microsoft emphasizes on security!
- OpenSSH is secure!

All this exageration, in fact, have been demolished.

Since "Verba volant, scripta manent", I consider myself in the group of the "Trusting is Good, not Trusting is better".
Vital papers will demonstrate their vitality by spontaneously moving from where you left them to where you can't find them.

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #129 –
Quote
Going a little bit off topic here, most MP3 patents were filled in 1992 and some in 1996, so they will expire by 2012 and 2016 respectively. 

OTOH,  MPEG-2 video was standardized in 1994 - based on MPEG-1/H.261 standardized in 1990, and after almost 10 years (actually, 13 if we take the older version in the count) it is still in full-use by DVDs, and I think it will stay for at least 10 years in that industry

I stand corrected.  I guess the more entrenched a technology becomes, the longer it's longevity, by reverse-attrition in a sense.  "We'd like to do something different, but we can't because we're invested and have millions of customers to support."

But, all-in-all, I still think Vorbis should get some kind of patent attached to it somehow.  Point to "prior art" and get a patent accordingly, or just apply for a patent for something more specific (and perhaps even new).  Doesn't really matter what's patented or how it's patented.  Heck, patent the name.  Just something solid to connect a ridiculously long contract to.  A contract that would be unenforceable after the patent(s) expires, obviously, but the principle alone of having some kind of patent and some kind of contract would make potentially any company easily able to provide Vorbis support.  The price is right.  And it's protected by contract.  Nothing else that CEO's care about as much.  Guaranteed cost-control and legal protection for it.

There's not much doubt for many people as to the sound quality of the Vorbis codec overall for many encoding rates.  So what if 64kbps falls apart to most people's ears?  It fell apart to mine to, but I'm not encoding my collection over again because of it.  As I write this, I'm listening to a song encoded with Vorbis - Post 1.0 CVS -q 4.25 (136kbps nom).  Meets all of my needs just fine.  Not many people listening to -q 0 as their primary, anyway.  And most Vorbis listeners use more bits than me, even.

Concerning development management issues...those are matters internal to Xiph which should be resolved in the meantime.

So, if patent-control and "truth in marketing" are the only remaining issues here, those are more easily resolved than encoding artifacts at 64kbps.  What companies want is -1- an overall great supplied product, -2- that will make their own product more marketable, -3- that costs them nothing (except their own integration time, generally), and -4- that has no legal hassles in the near-future.  All terms I think Vorbis could satisfy.

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #130 –
Quote
Anyway, I would also like to see Xiph's answer to the FHg's patent which was brought up.

If any aspect of Vorbis was patented by Xiph, then Xiph could:

A.  Challenge FhG over their new what-cha-ma-call-it technology in MP3 as infringing on a Vorbis patent.  (Pick something...)

B.  Remind FhG that Xiph (as a not-for-profit entity) has no viable corporate assets that could be seized, and thus would be a financial risk to sue, even if FhG is sure of their position.  Even if they win, they get what, a cease-and-desist?  OK, Vorbis is open-source.  Development group #2 picks up the ball.  Cease-and-desist can only apply to a defined number of entities.  The "killing ants" concept again.

C.  Counter with a settlement offer to FhG of "you drop your claim and we'll drop ours, because if we win, we could actually sue for damages, and if you win you'd get (effectively) nada because that's our net worth.  And a C+D would have no effect, because our product is open-source."

You don't have to beat a larger company with money...just make yourself more trouble than it's worth to try to sue you.  Make yourself a legal "sour apple", in a sense.

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #131 –
Quote
The fact is - no company, encluding Thomson, Philips, Dolby, Sony, FhG IIS, Nokia, AT&T, CT has no guts to claim that their compression systems are free of third-party "submarine" patents  and, yet,  one small organisation  called Xiph  comes with a claim that their complete coding system is patent free - and that becomes a marketing claim

Thanks Ivan. That is exactly what I was trying to convey in my post but I think that you did a better job of saying it.

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #132 –
I have bee nfollowing this thread for a while, and finally the temptation to join in overcame me. I think it is patently ridiculous, pun intended, for someone to expect vorbis developers to "indemnify" them for use of the vorbis codec.

Indemnifying means assuming responsibility, usually financial, in the case that someone is sued. How the heck are the developers supposed to do that. (Hint: They are not supposed to)

The patent system has issues, and the vorbis guys are working hard to create a good free codec unencumbered by patent issues. If anyone thinks they are infringing, they should say where and how. If no one does that, then there are no patent issues with vorbis. If the vorbis developers have not been served with a letter or something telling them that a specific routine or algorithm implemented in their codec is patented, then there are no patent issues.

If you are trying to stretch to concept of truth further than that, then I welcome you to challenge me and we will see how far you are willing to take your concept. Everything is relative, and definitely, relative to lame and other codes, vorbis is much safer. I do not know about MPC.

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #133 –
Quote
I have bee nfollowing this thread for a while, and finally the temptation to join in overcame me. I think it is patently ridiculous, pun intended, for someone to expect vorbis developers to "indemnify" them for use of the vorbis codec


At least,  Xiph could do the following , something like a statement (of course, this is matter of good will - anyway, if it fits the business future it could be considered as not that bad idea  :

"Xiph org have invested significant efforts in evaluating of the current audio patents, and found out that, to our best knowledge, none of analysed patents used in popular and widely used compression standards, namely: USXXXXX, USXXXXY, USXXXXZ....  USZZZZZ, EPXXXX... WOXXXX...  have impact on current reference vorbis implementation. We believe that, to our best knowledge, Ogg Vorbis is not infringing any of those patents.    On date XX-YY-ZZZZ,  by Xiph ORG.  "

The problem is, that patent search is extremely expensive - Xiph could, at least, identify core patents that might be of interest and clear them and state that they are not relevant - this might help future implementators, as they could search the similar patents or do cheaper patent research.

Next, there is documentation - I, at least,  find Vorbis documentation pretty much inferior to MPEG documentation and much harder to search / analyse,  and the description is not that easy to follow, for example if you want to make your own Vorbis encoder/decoder -

Anyway,

http://www.xiph.org/ogg/vorbis/doc/vorbis-...spec-intro.html

Quote
Window shape decode [long windows only]
  they cite:

Quote
A description of valid window functions for use with an inverse MDCT can be found in the paper _The use of multirate filter banks for coding of high quality digital audio_, by T. Sporer, K. Brandenburg and B. Edler. Vorbis windows all use the slope function y=sin(2PI*sin^2(x/n)).


Actually, this work from Brandenburg/Sporer/Edler is also heavily patented as specified in relevant patent cited several times in this discussion.  At least, Xiph could officially comment that issue and clearly state that they do not infringe - when the overlap/add windowed MDCT + window switching is in question.  I also think that Vorbis is using different switching method than one defined in that patent (time-domain energy diff.), or in Johnson's patent (perceptual entropy)  - but I am not sure if that makes implementation free from patent's core claim  - i.e. overlap&add and switching from windows of different sizes.


Also, there are couple of patents worth analysing regarding the LSF and VQ coding of the residual coefficients,  I am not sure (sincerely I don't think) if they directly relate to Vorbis  but for sure someone else worked on that earlier,  and TwinVQ and WMA use some similar quantization approaches - even the publically available WMA decoder from ffmpeg  uses parts of the vorbis code for decoding.

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #134 –
It amazes me how the folks in the "Vorbis can't claim it's patent-free!" camp manage to continually call Monty and Jack Moffitt flat-out liars.

1) Monty says he was careful to choose algorithms known to be patent-free. You choose to doubt his competence to do this.
2) Jack already stated on many occasions that there was an investigation of threatening patents, and they were found to be irrelevant. You choose not to believe him.

You don't *have* to take Jack and Monty's word for it. You can do your own patent search, if you like. A company that is interested in Vorbis can do so, too, or trust Jack and Monty and play the odds. However, your line of reasoning is this: "Xiph says Vorbis is patent-free. Well, I don't believe them, so I won't allow them to claim that Vorbis is patent-free."

What would make you believe that Monty implemented Vorbis using known-to-be-clear methods? Here's a neat idea for a new Xiph.org revenue stream: For a donation of, say, $100 or above, and a self-addressed stamped return envelope, Monty could provide notarized affidavits that he did the best to his knowledge and ability to make sure that Vorbis is using unpatented technology. Would that satisfy you? Well, probably not, you already called Xiph a bunch of liars, so in your eyes Monty probably won't be beneath perjuring himself.

Come on, people, let's get real!

I'm done with this topic. I'll be at the Monthly Meeting.

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #135 –
Quote
Quote
- 128kbps MP3 is CD quality!

All this exageration, in fact, have been demolished.

Definitely not this one.

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #136 –
Quote
It amazes me how the folks in the "Vorbis can't claim it's patent-free!" camp manage to continually call Monty and Jack Moffitt flat-out liars.


Excuse me? Who said that?  I'd like to clear this discussion from personal insults, and I certainly don't want to see myself in this group calling someone a liar.  I require clear arguments - and I don't want to fear that someone is putting me in a group who insults people.

Quote
1) Monty says he was careful to choose algorithms known to be patent-free. You choose to doubt his competence to do this.


Dead, flat wrong - what people did - is that they brought some patent numbers because one company (with very big scientific competence - certainly a little bit bigger than Xiph) claims that window switched MDCT filterbank is actually patented - and you got the straight US patent numbers.  What somebody rational would like to have is the straight "yes" or "no" answer with sighnificant scientific/legal backing - is that so hard?  And, tell me,  does it really doubt someone's competence?  No, of course not. 

Quote
2) Jack already stated on many occasions that there was an investigation of threatening patents, and they were found to be irrelevant. You choose not to believe him.


Someone stated something on some IRC log... are you listening to yoruself?  Well, I really believe Jack and that they did invest efforts to prove that, but I think this level of factual significance  is not meeting any serious criteria.  At least, somebody should officialy claim something... but that's just my 2 cents.  If you don't want to do that - it's OK, but that is not going to stop people thinking something about Vorbis.


Quote
You don't *have* to take Jack and Monty's word for it. You can do your own patent search, if you like. A company that is interested in Vorbis can do so, too, or trust Jack and Monty and play the odds. However, your line of reasoning is this: "Xiph says Vorbis is patent-free. Well, I don't believe them, so I won't allow them to claim that Vorbis is patent-free."


???? Whose line of reasoning - read the first part of the post - people were given numbers and claims - and it would be fair enough to have some kind of official answer from Xiph.. not some IRC log.

Quote
What would make you believe that Monty implemented Vorbis using known-to-be-clear methods? Here's a neat idea for a new Xiph.org revenue stream: For a donation of, say, $100 or above, and a self-addressed stamped return envelope, Monty could provide notarized affidavits that he did the best to his knowledge and ability to make sure that Vorbis is using unpatented technology. Would that satisfy you? Well, probably not, you already called Xiph a bunch of liars, so in your eyes Monty probably won't be beneath perjuring himself.


Please calm down,  nobody is calling anyone a liar - making this discussion completely personal and on insult basis  is certainly not helping anyone.  There is a lot of factual data awaiting for straight answers, and nothing else.

People have a right to doubt,  and if someone presents some real USPTO number, it would be fair enough to get a official answer that someone is wrong (or right?) - isn't that easy?

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #137 –
Quote
Quote

1) Monty says he was careful to choose algorithms known to be patent-free. You choose to doubt his competence to do this.


Dead, flat wrong - what people did - is that they brought some patent numbers because one company (with very big scientific competence - certainly a little bit bigger than Xiph) claims that window switched MDCT filterbank is actually patented - and you got the straight US patent numbers.  What somebody rational would like to have is the straight "yes" or "no" answer with sighnificant scientific/legal backing - is that so hard?

Yes, it *is* so hard. You can't just make an ad-hoc decision if patent A applies to technology X. There are law suits to determine this, with lawyers for both sides arguing about interpretations of patent A and implementation details of patent X. If you have a patent number that you think Vorbis is infringing on, the burden of proof is on you to show *specifically* how and why Vorbis is infringing. Until a specific accusation is made (and I mean specific, not just "Gee, this patent uses buzzwords that sound similar to what Vorbis does, Vorbis is so screwed"), Xiph.org doesn't have to say anything beyond what they've already said, which is that, to the best of their knowledge and abilities they have determined that Vorbis does not infringe on any patents.

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #138 –
Quote
It amazes me how the folks in the "Vorbis can't claim it's patent-free!" camp manage to continually call Monty and Jack Moffitt flat-out liars.

Xiph may claim what it wants.
I, as a different entity from Xiph, may think what I want.


That's freedom, you know.


And please, would you be so kind to indicate who said "Monty and Jack Moffitt flat-out liars"?
Vital papers will demonstrate their vitality by spontaneously moving from where you left them to where you can't find them.

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #139 –
Quote
Yes, it *is* so hard. You can't just make an ad-hoc decision if patent A applies to technology X. There are law suits to determine this, with lawyers for both sides arguing about interpretations of patent A and implementation details of patent X. If you have a patent number that you think Vorbis is infringing on, the burden of proof is on you to show *specifically* how and why Vorbis is infringing. Until a specific accusation is made (and I mean specific, not just "Gee, this patent uses buzzwords that sound similar to what Vorbis does, Vorbis is so screwed"), Xiph.org doesn't have to say anything beyond what they've already said, which is that, to the best of their knowledge and abilities they have determined that Vorbis does not infringe on any patents.


Sooo... "Gee - well, it patents the MDCT window switched filterbank of variable length with overlap-and-add method" exactly the same as Vorbis is using nowdays - this is enough to raise the eyebrows and to demand at least some level of clarification from the XIph guys - not because someone wants to SUE you (I don't think anyone will sue Xiph - from different reasons)  but because people who believe in open and free multimedia  also believe in open and free discussion on scientific level. It seems that it is only hard for you guys, and not for other people.  If you are not able to provide that, than I don't know what to speak with you anyway.  And stop putting this down to any personal level, like "Us vs. Monty" or something like that - this is just making image more childish.

Now, personally  I don't care - it just shows the level of support you are giving to potential customers  - "We don't care - we said what we have to say"

And about the "vorbis is screwed" argument - well, that kinda argument is what I will left to your IRC minutes,  it is kinda too rude for any civilized discussion. I am sorry but I won't participiate.

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #140 –
Quote
And please, would you be so kind to indicate who said "Monty and Jack Moffitt flat-out liars"?

Certainly. Everybody on this thread who says "Jack/Monty claims Vorbis is patent-free and I don't believe them" implicitly call them liars. Judging from recent comments, that seems to include you.

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #141 –
Quote
Quote
And please, would you be so kind to indicate who said "Monty and Jack Moffitt flat-out liars"?

Certainly. Everybody on this thread who says "Jack/Monty claims Vorbis is patent-free and I don't believe them" implicitly call them liars. Judging from recent comments, that seems to include you.

Eh  What a nice thinking - somehow I think all zealots like to put discussion on a personal level...

Back to the drawing board with you

I don't respect the "person cult" -  the only thing I can claim is that you are not capable of scientific discussion, and that is what HA forum is about.

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #142 –
Quote
It amazes me how the folks in the "Vorbis can't claim it's patent-free!" camp manage to continually call Monty and Jack Moffitt flat-out liars.


I probably missed a post, as I have not seen anyone stating such a ting about Xiph representatives.

We are pointing to an issue: credibility.
Several of us are thinking that Vorbis could be more credible to companies (from the patent viewpoint) by providing a demonstration of the conducted study.

As an example, at first glance US 5,214,742 seems to cover Vorbis. This is probably not the case, as Xiph probably already investigated this specific patent (it is from the classic Thomson/FhG pool). But a short explanation about why Vorbis is not infringing this one (as an example) would rise your credibility on the market.

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #143 –
Quote
Quote
And please, would you be so kind to indicate who said "Monty and Jack Moffitt flat-out liars"?

Certainly. Everybody on this thread who says "Jack/Monty claims Vorbis is patent-free and I don't believe them" implicitly call them liars. Judging from recent comments, that seems to include you.

Please, keep your "implicity" strictly for you: as you said, everybody is innocent until proven guilty.
I am not "guilty" of having called them (Monty and Jack Moffitt) liars because i did not said this, and don't pretend to put in my mouth what I've not said.
Vital papers will demonstrate their vitality by spontaneously moving from where you left them to where you can't find them.

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #144 –
c_haese and anybody else this might concern: please don't drag this to a personal level discussion. Let's try to stick strictly on non-personal level issues please.

Thank you.
Juha Laaksonheimo

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #145 –
Quote
But, all-in-all, I still think Vorbis should get some kind of patent attached to it somehow.  Point to "prior art" and get a patent accordingly, or just apply for a patent for something more specific (and perhaps even new).  Doesn't really matter what's patented or how it's patented.  Heck, patent the name.

At least in the US there is a fairly short time to file a patent after you have published (meaning publicly used or disclosed) the thing you are patenting.  I think the limit is a year.

With the current licensing terms, other companies are free to make closed source proprietary derivitave works, so even if Xiph had a patent on Vorbis it would be tough to use it as a bargaining chip against a suit from another patent holder, even if that company were using Xiph's invention.

You wouldn't patent a name, but you could tradmark it.

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #146 –
Quote
At least in the US there is a fairly short time to file a patent after you have published (meaning publicly used or disclosed) the thing you are patenting.  I think the limit is a year.

With the current licensing terms, other companies are free to make closed source proprietary derivitave works, so even if Xiph had a patent on Vorbis it would be tough to use it as a bargaining chip against a suit from another patent holder, even if that company were using Xiph's invention.

Actually, I'm throwing around the "patent Vorbis" idea for a simpler purpose.  Not for "offensive" patent actions, i.e., going after anyone for using what would be a Vorbis-patented function.  Vorbis would still be functionally open-source, if not by the full philosophy of open-source.  Xiph, if they chose this approach, would still provide the source code to anyone who wanted it.

The main purpose for having a patent would be almost entirely principle.  It could be used "defensively" against anyone who might accuse them of patent infringement (too late?), but otherwise only to provide a "receiving position" to the $0.00/1000yr contract.  I am only intending the whole idea as some form of insurance for hardware companies to openly accept Vorbis since they could #1 feel quite safe that there won't be legal issues (or that they wouldn't be as likely, anyway...too late?), and #2 feel sure that there will never be a product licensing expenditure in order to use Vorbis in any capacity.

The entire idea is intended to elicit warm fuzzies from hardware companies, that's all, because...

Warm, Fuzzy Executives = Acceptance = Growing Vorbis Support

---
Or is all of this too late, based on recent posts?  Oh well, I tried my best for a "diversionary solution".

Good night everybody!

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #147 –
Fascinating thread.

I'm just posting to point out that I didn't really start it - my comment was split from the 64kbps listening test thread.


Also, patents:

You can have something that is completely 100% patent free. To say otherwise is nonsense!

e.g. if the complete technological details were publicly available more than 20 years ago, then this technology is patent free. If there was a patent before, it has now expired. If there was a (same, similar or encompassing) patent filed more recently, then it doesn't cover this technology.

(You can patent your own ideas retrospectively (by 1 year IIRC) in the USA, but not in the UK. You can't retrospectively patent something that's been in the public domain for years, though you can talk about it in a patent as prior art. (e.g. it's too late to patent Vorbis now).)


One problem is that new uses (or combinations?) of old technology are patentable. So you could take an old idea, use it in a new context, but find someone else already patented that new use.

But this doesn't mean that there's no such thing as patent free.


Cheers,
David.

P.S. ScorLibran - you can go to a patent office website (e.g. US or UK), and read about patents. It'll explain a lot of what you've been asking, and why some of your suggestions aren't possible.

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #148 –
Quote
Quote
Certainly. Everybody on this thread who says "Jack/Monty claims Vorbis is patent-free and I don't believe them" implicitly call them liars. Judging from recent comments, that seems to include you.



I'm a 'small potato' which use Vorbis and LAME for quite a long time, my first encoder is L3ENC.

I've to admit that english is not my native language. If my words have some offensive word, maybe it's due to my limited language ability. Please show me and I'll try to correct.

To my understanding, the discussion started because the nice guys here DO REALLY CARE about the patent of Vorbis.

I love LAME, but  unfortunatly LAME really have patent hold my the so-call large company (Fhg, Thomson multimedia). I put a hope on Vorbis because it claim itself patent free, I've dream of many portables support Vorbis, then end the money making dream of the selfish businessman.

But long time passed, suddenly I saw this topic, I was shocked to know Vorbis is still not cleared from patent matter.

Please ... I beg you guys in XIPH. Solve this problem and let the developers free of the legal matter. My friend is a programmer (I'm ... though I can write Applesoft BASIC only), I fully understand how hard they did the job. They're very tired already ... seating before the PC whole day, drinking the damn bad taste coffee and trying to make the code better. Though Vorbis improve really slow, but at certain low-bitrate it really did the job, beats many other codec.

Sorry for my bad english. But I don't think somebody here want to insult you, please try to keep the discussion in a scientific level and positive attitude.

Thank you very much.
Hong Kong - International Joke Center (after 1997-06-30)

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #149 –
Quote
Quote

e.g. if the complete technological details were publicly available more than 20 years ago, then this technology is patent free. If there was a patent before, it has now expired. If there was a (same, similar or encompassing) patent filed more recently, then it doesn't cover this technology.


The thing is,  which is core of this discussion - is that adaptive window switched MDCT filterbanks didn't exist 20 years ago - they were result of work of H.Malvar, J. Princen, A. Bradley and, finally, B. Edler (dynamic switching)  in late 80's.

I know - I was just arguing against the claim made several pages back that "patent free" is meaningless, because nothing can be patent free.

This is wrong. Things can be patent free, and can be proven to be patent free.

Whether Ogg Vorbis can be proven to be patent free is an entirely different matter. However, it would be wise to try, and this discussion is useful.

Cheers,
David.