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: New patent-free subband codec possible? (Read 5677 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

New patent-free subband codec possible?

Sooo, it seems that some of the core techniques of MPC (e.g. subband coding) are not patented, but the way it's currently done in MPC IS. I suppose if these parts are rewritten to be patent free it wouldn't be MPC anymore, but I've been wondering, is it the patent that's keeping MPC from becoming a widespread format or is it because of its poorer performance at the lower bitrates used for internet distribution? (Somehow I doubt THIS is a problem--hardcore codec nuts like we have here would encode at higher bitrates no matter WHERE we're sending them to, while all that the rest of the unwashed public cares about is convenience or SPEED, and boy, does the MPC encoder have THAT! (of course convenience is not quite there yet... ) )

New patent-free subband codec possible?

Reply #1 –
i think that subband coding (at least the way it's used in MPC?) is one of the patented technologies MPEG Layer 2, which is the base for MPC ... and that is the reason for MPC staying not patent-free, at least that's what i remember from reading HA

New patent-free subband codec possible?

Reply #2 –
Quote
Originally posted by maciey
i think that subband coding (at least the way it's used in MPC?) is one of the patented technologies MPEG Layer 2, which is the base for MPC ... and that is the reason for MPC staying not patent-free, at least that's what i remember from reading HA


Schreiben bevor das Modem wieder auflegt ...

MPEG Layer 1 und 2 ist durch 3 Patente infiltriert.
* Effizienter Subbandfilter
* Speicherung mehrerer  Samples mit einem gemeinsamen Skalenfaktor
* Blockweise Verarbeitung von Daten

2) und 3) haben große Chance, an Prior Art oder geringer Erfindungshöhe zu scheitern.
Bei 3) würde ich die Chancen dafür bei etwa 100% ansiedeln.

Bleibt 1). Hier müßte ich noch mal ansehen, ob es nur um die numerische Implementierung geht,
oder um die genaue Filterauslegung. Wenn nur das erste patentiert ist, könnte man ein wesentlich
langsameres Äquivalent schreiben. Im Encoder würde das kaum stören (da macht der
Subbandsplitter <3% aus und ist nichtmal im Klemmschen Sinne optimiert), bei Decoder macht er
derzeitig ca. 40%.

Wenn nur die numerische Implementierung patentiert ist, könnte man einen langsameren workaround
für die, die nicht die patentierte Version nutzen/bezahlen wollen, schreiben.
Da müßte ich mal 2 Tage investieren, um das Patent durchzuarbeiten.

Auf der anderen Seite läuft das Patent in den näachsten Jahren aus. Es wurde ja schon 1986! erteilt.
Patentlaufzeiten liegen zwischen 17 und 20 Jahren.
--  Frank Klemm

New patent-free subband codec possible?

Reply #3 –
I tried to translate what Frank just posted. I hope it is accurate.
edit: you expect me to get this right on the first try? At 2am?! Thx to CiTay for the help.

-----snip-----

Have to write before the modem hangs up again...

MPEG Layer 1 & 2 are infiltrated by 3 patents.
- Efficient subband filter
- Saving multiple samples with one common Scalefactor
- Blockwise data processing

2) and 3) stand a good chance of failing either because of being "Prior Art" or lack of inventive ingenuity.
I estimate the chance of that happening with 3) to be 100%.

What remains is 1). Here I'd have to look again, if it [the patent] only covers the numerical implementation, or the exact filter design. If only the first is patented, a considerably slower equivalent could be written. That would hardly have an impact on the encoder (in which the subband splitter only accounts for < 3% and isn't even optimized the Klemm way), whereas it currently accounts for ca. 40% [of needed processing time] on the decoder side.

If only the numerical implementation is patented, one could write a slower workaround for those who do not wish to use/pay for the non patented version. I would have to invest 2 days to work myself through the patent.

On the other hand, the patent will expire in the next years. It was granted in 1986! The durations of patents are between 17 and 20 years.

New patent-free subband codec possible?

Reply #4 –
Quote
Originally posted by Joe Bloggs
is it the patent that's keeping MPC from becoming a widespread format or is it because of its poorer performance at the lower bitrates used for internet distribution? 


None of it. Most of the reasons have been answered in a recent post, but it boils down that it's limited to the audiophile community. Period. I've never personally met a person that heard about MPC. It's usually only mentioned in weird and "off the beaten path" audiophile sites and forums.

Quote
(Somehow I doubt THIS is a problem--hardcore codec nuts like we have here would encode at higher bitrates no matter WHERE we're sending them to


I believe I can count in a hand all hardcore codec nuts I've personally known in my life. Indeed, I can count in a finger: Me.

And these are exactly the people that hear about MPC.

New patent-free subband codec possible?

Reply #5 –
Quote
Originally posted by Gecko
I tried to translate what Frank just posted. I hope it is accurate.


I'll start writing in Portuguese. Hope you guys find someone to translate as well. :-P

New patent-free subband codec possible?

Reply #6 –
Quote
Originally posted by rjamorim


I'll start writing in Portuguese. Hope you guys find someone to translate as well. :-P


Didn't quite understand Franks reason there but LMAO at your commint
What if the Hokey Pokey....is What it's all about?
 

New patent-free subband codec possible?

Reply #7 –
same for me and polish... but i understand Mr Klemm - we either could have no response from him (because his modem lost connection when he was translating in his head to write correctly in english) or to have an accurate german explanation - so he chose the former.