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 65720 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #200 –
hmm. who can tell if something is patent free?
it is a LEGAL term and just a judge can decide if something is violating a patent.

you can ask a lawyer - he will tell you his OPINION
you can ask a software/codec expert - he will tell you his OPINION

only a judge can tell you in a special court case 

my point:
you can't provide any EVIDENCE that something IS violating patents (=laws/rules).
unless you get sued and a judge tells you.

the only thing you can do is tell that you think you are not infringing any patents. and that's the thing xiph does.

Xiph could enumerate reasons why they think they are not infringing any patents but that wouldn't prove anything either. Maybe it would give you a warm fuzzy feeling, but in reality every software CAN infring software patents at any time.

so any discussion on patent issues will lead to nowhere.

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #201 –
Quote
Except that MusePack is not fully open sourced and the suggested patents that may be infringed are about to expire.

I've been hearing this for the past year or so.  Does "about to expire" mean a few more years?

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #202 –
Quote
Xiph could enumerate reasons why they think they are not infringing any patents but that wouldn't prove anything either. Maybe it would give you a warm fuzzy feeling, but in reality every software CAN infring software patents at any time.

Soo, does this eventually mean that anybody can claim pretty much anything without any need to justify any claims in anyway.

Nothing needs to be justified.. you can claim anything and people (forunately not everybody) will believe you as long as you are not sued.

That sounds just great. Especially great it sounds considering the future HA discussions.. Maybe we just should let go principles about ABX and all that also.. heck people are afterall convincing, so we probably just should believe everything anybody says without any questioning.

Why question anything then?

For the millionth time: Nobody can ask Xiph to prove conclusively that Vorbis is patent free. What can be asked is some justifications for the claims. But nothing, absolutely no justifications comes from Xiph. The question is, why would anybody believe the claims, if they even refuse to justify the claims in anyway.
Juha Laaksonheimo

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #203 –
Quote
Quote

This one seemed to come up several times in this thread. This is my (not Xiph's) opinion on the question. I don't know MPC enough to have an opinion on whether there are patents or not. However, if the author can tell me that he was careful for patents when writing MPC and he did some research (not asking for a legal search here) to make sure he wasn't infringing, then I have no problem with him claiming MPC is patent-free. On the other hand, if he didn't care about patents at any point in the design, I don't think MPC should be considered patent-free. Anyone knows which one applies?

Eeh, I meant using "patent-free" as a claimed feature of Vorbis which Musepack lacks, in a debate. The authors of Musepack have never claimed MPC to be patent-free.

What I meant is that if the author of MPC can say he was really careful about patents (I'm not asking for proof, just a statement), then there's (IMHO) probably no reason to say Vorbis is better than MPC simply because of the patent status. However, if the he says he didn't care about the patents at all while designing MPC, you have to admit the risks are far greater than for a codec where at least the authors have been careful. Once again, I don't know the answer to the question (whether the author at least considered the patent issue).

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #204 –
I'm becoming confused.  I was sure I had read of someone (I believe it was one of the Xiph people) saying that their lawyers mandated that they could speak on this matter no further.  I can't find the exact post, so it must be on page 6 of the "Part I" thread, the one that gives me a "Page not found - error -1" when I try to open it.  Oh well...it's gotta be here somewhere.

I'm still new to this community, but I've been through situations like this many times.  Never with patent law, nor ever concerning audio codecs, but in any case of accusations from one or more people against the claims of a company, that company's best course of action is always to not comment on the matter specifically for the purpose of #1 legal protection (what you don't say now can't be used against you later), and #2 (and more effectively) letting your accusers talk and talk and talk and gradually dig holes around themselves (i.e., their arguments) and lay a nice minefield of claims and statements (valid or not) that can often be used in some capacity against their position in the future.  I'm not a lawyer, but I've worked with enough of them to know that the #1 way to get into trouble with law is to talk too much, and inversely the #1 way to avoid trouble with law is to not say anything.  The way to win a debate (or any conflict for that matter) is to let your opposition make a mistake and then to use it against them.  Nasty concept, but it's life...at least it's how to protect yourself in a legal matter.

To risk soundling cliche, anything Xiph says in this thread can and will be used against them in a court of law should anything ever come of these patent infringement claims.  How good of an idea is it to comment at all here?  It's a very valid argument to bring up the "scientific value" of confirming Xiph's claims of a "patent-free Vorbis", and it's also important that HA adopt an official position on whether they consider Vorbis to truly be "patent-free"...however as their lawyers have apparently advised against saying anything outside the company about this matter, it completely supercedes the importance of scientific value or official positions or anything else that can be considered here.  If Xiph "digs their own hole" so to speak, and folds as a result, then scientific matters and official acceptance of their codecs will become utterly moot.

I have the highest respect for everyone who has posted in this thread.  And the majority of posts have been quite relevant (barring my own "brainstorming" mumbo jumbo much earlier).  Code examples are clearly evidence and statements directly from the patent(s) involved are central to the matter, and the interest of HydrogenAudio's position is key since this is their forum (among other reasons).  I hope I'm not making any enemies with my words, but I've just been through situations so similar to this so many times that I really want to share my opinions on the matter.

It seems to me that the upcoming Xiph meeting is the only proper forum to begin discussing these issues in an official and public way.  It gives them time to gather data, support the data gathered, form an official position, and best be able to either uphold their claims and oppose claims to the contrary, or to decide to change their marketing line about Vorbis.  And, to be blunt, it gives them time to gather copies of discussions on HydrogenAudio and elsewhere to use in the most effective way to support their case.

Now, if I misread the post which I can't get to at the moment or if the apparent position of Xiph's lawyers has since changed, then I'll obviously accept that and change my argument accordingly.  But if this legal position is still in effect, then I must ask...[span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%']What's going on here?[/span]

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #205 –
Quote
#2 (and more effectively) letting your accusers talk and talk and talk and gradually dig holes around themselves (i.e., their arguments) and lay a nice minefield of claims and statements (valid or not) that can often be used in some capacity against their position in the future.

Heh.. I don't think anybody here has so far directly accused Xiph. What has been done is, that unclear patent sections is shown, and some explanation/justification requested, which hasn't happened. Talking about "accusers" and minefields are imo way beyond this thread.. Since when normal questioning and asking for justification became "accusing" and the people doing this "accusers"? 
Quote
Now, if I misread the post which I can't get to at the moment or if the apparent position of Xiph's lawyers has since changed, then I'll obviously accept that and change my argument accordingly.  But if this legal position is still in effect, then I must ask...[span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%']What's going on here?[/span]

Afaik only Monty or other Xiph board members can say anything official.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Carsten or Jean-Marc can't officially/legally represent Xiph's point of view here, so anything they say is unofficial.

Of course, it would very much help everybody if Xiph could even unofficially justify their patent free claims. For that, HA would be pretty ideal place imo.

I'm pretty sure that nothing will happen and Xiph continues advertizing its "patent free" audio and video codecs as usual, people are happy and accept this without any questioning (questioning something like this is obviously seen as an attack or something, although it is the very basis of any advancement or scientific discussion in general). I don't know if this thread accomplished really anything, except hopefully it made even a few people think that there might be a difference between "what appears to be" and "what really is".
Juha Laaksonheimo

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #206 –
Quote
Afaik only Monty or other Xiph board members can say anything official.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Carsten or Jean-Marc can't officially/legally represent Xiph's point of view here, so anything they say is unofficial.

Believe me, the only reason I participated to this thread is that 1) I don't have enough Xiph internal information about that to do any "damage" and 2) I don't have enough knowledge of how Vorbis really works either 
(and BTW, I am not employed by Xiph)

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #207 –
I was wrongfully assuming that jmvalin and c_haese were actual representatives of Xiph.  My apologies.

As for how Xiph should respond to "accusers", I understand that "accusers" may not be the correct way to describe anyone here.  But my point was that any words at all...accusing or not...can be dangerous ground sometimes and you'd never know it until a subpoena or court action of some kind was filed.  I can't help but to see the posting of source code for the encoder practically side-by-side with patent text as creating a possibly dangerous position for Xiph, that's all.  But one they could also take advantage of possibly as well (as ironic as that may sound).

I indeed want this matter resolved along with everyone else...but I also understand the need for legal protection precluding their (Xiph's) ability to help right now in any way.

As for not knowing "who's who", sorry...I won't read so much into "member types" from now on. 

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #208 –
Quote
I was wrongfully assuming that jmvalin and c_haese were actual representatives of Xiph.  My apologies.

...

As for not knowing "who's who", sorry...I won't read so much into "member types" from now on.  

Just to be more precise, I'm part of the "Xiph team", but I am not employed by Xiph (only Monty is AFAIK). Also, when I speak here, I am usually (unless otherwise noted) expressing my own opinions, now Xiph's official position (if there is such a thing).

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #209 –
Quote
Quote
I was wrongfully assuming that jmvalin and c_haese were actual representatives of Xiph.  My apologies.

...

As for not knowing "who's who", sorry...I won't read so much into "member types" from now on. 

Just to be more precise, I'm part of the "Xiph team", but I am not employed by Xiph (only Monty is AFAIK). Also, when I speak here, I am usually (unless otherwise noted) expressing my own opinions, now Xiph's official position (if there is such a thing).

Thank you...I feel better informed now!  I hope you can understand why I was a bit lost after someone said their lawyers didn't want any official statements from Xiph, and then continuing to see posts by people with "Xiph" in their member-type.

Assumptions can cause confusion... 

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #210 –
Quote
Afaik only Monty or other Xiph board members can say anything official.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Carsten or Jean-Marc can't officially/legally represent Xiph's point of view here, so anything they say is unofficial.


This is correct, I am not authorized to represent Xiph.org in legal matters. I am just a volunteer like a lot of other people involved with Xiph. As far as I know, only Xiph.org board members can say anything official on behalf of Xiph.org. I never said explicitly that I am officially representing Xiph.org, but neither did I explicitly say the opposite. I apologize if this gave anybody the impression that I am officially representing Xiph.org.

Quote
Of course, it would very much help everybody if Xiph could even unofficially justify their patent free claims. For that, HA would be pretty ideal place imo.


You are correct that as yet no official Xiph.org representatives have directly commented in this discussion. However, two people (Garf and myself) have inofficially relayed opinions that come directly from Monty. (In case you missed it, I did so in quoting a comment from the Vorbis source code, a few messages back, that directly attests to the patent-free-ness of that particular code chunk the comment is referring to. Interestingly enough, that code chunk is responsible for determining the window length, the very element that supposedly is infringing on US patent #5214742. It's also quite interesting that that post has not attracted any comments at all so far.)

Quote
I'm pretty sure that nothing will happen and Xiph continues advertizing its "patent free" audio and video codecs as usual (...)


The patent matter is still scheduled to be discussed at the monthly meeting in a few days. Unlike you, I am pretty sure that something will happen. I will personally urge the powers that be that there should be an official statement on Xiph.org's website, even if it's only an FAQ entry that clarifies the patent-free claims.

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #211 –
What I really don't like about this subject is that it started with claims by FhG employees at IBC2003. Did you ask them to prove their claims? Those claims were made in a non-public and non-official way, right? So why aren't we asking FhG to, at least, make a public comment/clarifications on eventual Vorbis patent issues, just like you are asking Xiph about Vorbis? Even if we already know that they (FhG) wouldn't do it...

cya

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #212 –
Quote
So why aren't we asking FhG to, at least, make a public comment/clarifications on eventual Vorbis patent issues, just like you are asking Xiph about Vorbis?

Because FhG didn't officially say that they knew about patents that Vorbis is using.

On the other hand, Xiph did say officially that Vorbis is patent-free.

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #213 –
But until this...
Quote
Because FhG didn't officially say that they knew about patents that Vorbis is using.

...is stated officially, I'd contend that this...
Quote
On the other hand, Xiph did say officially that Vorbis is patent-free.

...would still be true.

I know it's a debatable point, but it just makes sense that they could say "patent-free" until proven otherwise by somebody.  It's like saying 48kbps is CD-quality.  That's been proven by enough people not to be the case, so it can't legitimately be claimed.  I'd bet, similarly, that Xiph would quickly change their claim about Vorbis the moment it's proven that it is not patent-free.

To risk oversimplifying the entire matter..."It is until it's shown not to be".

I can say I'm a lizard until it's proven well enough otherwise.  Oh...I'm using a computer.  That's proof enough, so I can't be a lizard anymore.      And on that note, I'd say it's time for a nap.

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #214 –
Quote
What I really don't like about this subject is that it started with claims by FhG employees at IBC2003. Did you ask them to prove their claims? Those claims were made in a non-public and non-official way, right? So why aren't we asking FhG to, at least, make a public comment/clarifications on eventual Vorbis patent issues, just like you are asking Xiph about Vorbis? Even if we already know that they (FhG) wouldn't do it...

cya

First, the patent even do not belong to FhG, so they are not in a legal position to do something about it, even if they want to - and I have a feeling that they were more concerned by some other coding technologies, not Vorbis. Afer all - if I remember the discussion correctly,  Vorbis wasn't the scope of the discussion at all - it was just mentioned as one of the examples of the window switched MDCT codecs that use the technology and might be subject to mentioned patent... but nobody has any kind of hostile attitude towards Xiph or Vorbis - even just mentioning it is a positive marketing for it considering the market penentration of Vorbis.

Second,  Menno, me and some other people already  knew before that the MDCT window switched filterbank is subject to couple of patents - so nothing new here,  we only heard opinion from people with significant scientific background in the industry (much higher than ours)  and it was just a fruitful discussion.

Third,  for a decent scientific discussion we don't need FhG and their claims - official or unofficial,  I think that couple people here have more than enough skill in the art  to read and understand the patent and its underlying claims, and look at the Vorbis code and make a technical opinion (not LEGAL opinion - but legal opinion in this field is dependent on the tech. opinion) whether Vorbis is violating or not - which I did, and I disclosed my findings and some questions.  My intention is not to "prove" something, or to take someone to the court (why on earth would I do that, even if I have the legal power)  - my intention is to discuss some serous codec implementation issues and whether is possible or not to make this type of the codec (MDCT window switched one with overlap-add windows) without violating Bernd Edler's patent ...  I perfectly understand why Vorbis developers won't take part in the discussion - but that certainly does not help at all - because they claim that they managed to avoid the patent, and many of us would really like to know - how!

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #215 –
I only said that because I remembered what JohnV said and I think that was the main factor to start this discussion (after the thread was split).

Quote
Fraunhofer guys at IBC2003 claimed that Vorbis is indeed infringing patents, but that no action will be taken yet because it's not bothered at this point, because there's not enough financial gains at stake yet.


That's why I thought that FhG was claiming that Xiph was infringing one of their patents.

cya

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #216 –
Quote
I only said that because I remembered what JohnV said and I think that was the main factor to start this discussion (after the thread was split).

This is the factor that started it, but the discussion steered from it since


And people here are not asking clarification just because FhG says they use patented stuff, but because other people are arriving to a similar conclusion.

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #217 –
[removed in the interest of unfraying nerves    ]

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #218 –
Quote
I only said that because I remembered what JohnV said and I think that was the main factor to start this discussion (after the thread was split).

Quote
Fraunhofer guys at IBC2003 claimed that Vorbis is indeed infringing patents, but that no action will be taken yet because it's not bothered at this point, because there's not enough financial gains at stake yet.


That's why I thought that FhG was claiming that Xiph was infringing one of their patents.

cya

Eh.. Have you seen any FhG guys around here.. cause I sure haven't. What they may or may not have said at IBC in unofficial discussions, doesn't even concern this thread.
Juha Laaksonheimo

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #219 –
Quote
Because FhG didn't officially say that they knew about patents that Vorbis is using.

On the other hand, Xiph did say officially that Vorbis is patent-free.


Quote
Eh.. Have you seen any FhG guys around here.. cause I sure haven't. What they may or may not have said at IBC in unofficial discussions, doesn't even concern this thread.


But are we asking Xiph to discuss this publicly because FhG told something unofficially and in a non-public way? It seems so (I know it started in another thread)... Would we be having this discussion if they had not said that at IBC2003?

And I think this is more a legal matter than a scientific one. We may have to enter the scientific and technological details in order to clear this issue, but it is mainly a legal discussion, IMHO. And that's why I agree with ScorLibran: It's much better for Xiph if they don't enter any public discussions, even unofficially. And even if they don't have nothing to fear. From what I read in both threads (Part 1 & 2) no one can really tell that Vorbis is infringing patents. You are still discussing it. You have every right to do it. But you don't have the right to ask Xiph to join this public and open discussion, with all the technical details in the middle.

cya

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #220 –
Quote
But are we asking Xiph to discuss this publicly because FhG told something unofficially and in a non-public way? It seems so (I know it started in another thread)... Would we be having this discussion if they had not said that at IBC2003?

And I think this is more a legal matter than a scientific one. We may have to enter the scientific and technological details in order to clear this issue, but it is mainly a legal discussion, IMHO. And that's why I agree with ScorLibran: It's much better for Xiph if they don't enter any public discussions, even unofficially. And even if they don't have nothing to fear. From what I read in both threads (Part 1 & 2) no one can really tell that Vorbis is infringing patents. You are still discussing it. You have every right to do it. But you don't have the right to ask Xiph to join this public and open discussion, with all the technical details in the middle.

I guess this has been a bit too long thread.. Same issues and same missunderstandings appear over and over again. I don't find it reasonable to write the same things dozens of times.. 
And we are not asking Xiph to discuss because of something FhG has said.. *sigh*
Go back to the first posts of this thread, and you will find the reasons why the discussion is going on..

And this is the last time I say this: Patent infringement and justifications for claims are 2 totally different issues. The other is legal discussion, the other is NOT.

Please, if you haven't been reading the threads from the start, don't just suddenly jump in..
Quote
But you don't have the right to ask Xiph to join this public and open discussion, with all the technical details in the middle.
Oh, great, so now there isn't even a right to ask justifications for claims.. right, should we extend that to ABX as well? Well I just wonder what will come next..

For both ScorLibran and m0rbidini: try not to assume so much, especially things which have been covered many times already (like the fact that the patent in question doesn't even belong to FhG)...
Juha Laaksonheimo

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #221 –
Quote
But you don't have the right to ask Xiph to join this public and open discussion, with all the technical details in the middle.

That's absurd, what is going on? Now we are under a dictatorship and aren't allowed to ask about the legal status of a public project developed by a non-ptofit organization that is supposedly claiming to set a standard of "openness"?

Bottom line: Of course we have the right to ask them to do that, it's even ridiculous such issue has been brought.

And, of course, they have the right not to join the discussion anyway. But just because they don't need to join, doesn't mean we can't ask them to join.

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #222 –
Quote
That's almost evil.

"We're know you're doing wrong, and we could potentially take action now to correct it with a minimum of pain for everyone.  But instead we'll wait until our action puts you out of business and we can sue for damages and make millions, take enough customers to make millions, or both."

The purpose of a legal action is to see that a part gets compensation for "misbehaviour" (I lack a better word) of another part.

Now, a legal action takes time, money and patience. So, I don't see at all what's so evil in FhG's ways. I believe they wouldn't even be able to squeeze enough money from Xiph to pay for the legal costs, let alone being compensated by the patent infringement. So, obviously, they should wait until a moment where suing, at least, won't make them poorer in the long run.

Quote
Almost as if, "I see you robbing my house, but instead of chasing you away when you're at my front door (which would be better for both of us), I'm going to instead let you come inside so I can slowly corner you and then kill you."


Oh, good lord! Another analogy that won't fit. WTF is going on here? Admins should create another rule forbiding analogies.

Quote
Something is essentially wrong with the whole concept of knowing someone is doing wrong to you, but instead of resolving it sooner, waiting to go after them later just so you can specifically gain more and/or hurt them.


Gah. Again, it has nothing to do with robbery. With your example of robbery (caught in the act), all you have to do is call the police and testify. You don't need to start an enormous legal process with technicians, attorneys and lawyers from both sides that takes years and consumes thousands of dollars.

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #223 –
Quote
The purpose of a legal action is to see that a part gets compensation for "misbehaviour" (I lack a better word) of another part.

Not necessarily. Legal action could also be taken simply to stop misbehavior.
Quote
Now, a legal action takes time, money and patience. So, I don't see at all what's so evil in FhG's ways. I believe they wouldn't even be able to squeeze enough money from Xiph to pay for the legal costs, let alone being compensated by the patent infringement. So, obviously, they should wait until a moment where suing, at least, won't make them poorer in the long run.


True, Xiph doesn't have a lot of money, but there are a few game companies that use Vorbis, and they might have some money. If the patent holders (whoever they actually are) truly believe Xiph infringes on their patents, they could go after the game companies instead. In addition, they could try to get an injunction against Xiph's claims of patent-free-ness, or at least send Monty cease-and-desist letters.

Of course, the fact that none of this has happened yet means nothing. It may mean that the patent holders are waiting for the right time, or it may mean that their claims are baseless.

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #224 –
Quote
Quote
Almost as if, "I see you robbing my house, but instead of chasing you away when you're at my front door (which would be better for both of us), I'm going to instead let you come inside so I can slowly corner you and then kill you."


Oh, good lord! Another analogy that won't fit. WTF is going on here? Admins should create another rule forbiding analogies.

Not only another false analogy, but numerious other fallacies and flaws in reasoning.

Unfortunately I don't have the time to continue in this discussion on a fundamental philosophical level (and besides, that'd be diluting the point again).

Instead, I'll simply state to the appropriate people that far fetched analogies, redefinitions of the term "patent free" to be a non-provable relative condition, justification for making a false statement about "patent free", and applying philosophy of law to scientific principles (saying that something can be truthfully patent free through the "innocent until proven guilty principle," which is NOT what is applicable here in a scientific sense), are all inappropriate.

What is appropriate:

1.  Whether or not Vorbis is patent free from a scientific perspective.
2.  Whether or not there is reason to believe that it is patent free from a scientific perspective (and what this reasoning is).
3.  And how we can verify that it is patent free from a scientific perspective.

These issues must be clarified first before other conclusions are drawn, and so far, they have not been.

Scholasticism and word play, non-scientific principles applied to scientific principles, and views on ethical matters pertaining to "patent free" are all besides the point.