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: Opus Patent Pool (Read 16012 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Opus Patent Pool

Reply #25 –
There are currently 1 or more patent lawsuits going on about these 3 patents:

EP2304723
EP2352147
EP2144171

I don't know whether the patent owners are suing a company for violating their patents or whether someone is trying to invalidate these patents in court. 1 patent is owned by voiceage, the other 2 by fraunhofer.

Re: Opus Patent Pool

Reply #26 –
i looked up the US patents and 2 of them are currently involved a lawsuit. I have also added their expiry dates from google patents.

US7447631 - 2024-10-07
US7516064 - 2026-01-30 lawsuit
US8195454 - 2029-03-28
US8296159 - 2029-06-23
US7873511 - 2029-11-18
US10229696 - 2030-08-23
US9082395 - 2031-07-23 lawsuit
US9224403 - 2032-02-04
US8892449 - 2032-02-10
US9111530 - 2032-02-29
US9100768 - 2032-04-04
US8457975 - 2032-04-05
US20130226570 - 2033-06-10
US9589571 - 2033-07-19
US11081117 - 2033-07-19
US10026408 - 2034-05-23

Re: Opus Patent Pool

Reply #27 –
updated the patent list to add more lawsuits and add expired label:

US7447631 - 2024-10-07 EXPIRED
US7516064 - 2026-01-30 lawsuit
US8195454 - 2029-03-28
US8296159 - 2029-06-23
US7873511 - 2029-11-18
US10229696 - 2030-08-23
US9082395 - 2031-07-23 lawsuit
US9224403 - 2032-02-04 lawsuit
US8892449 - 2032-02-10
US9111530 - 2032-02-29 lawsuit
US9100768 - 2032-04-04
US8457975 - 2032-04-05
US20130226570 - 2033-06-10
US9589571 - 2033-07-19
US11081117 - 2033-07-19
US10026408 - 2034-05-23

Re: Opus Patent Pool

Reply #28 –
European patents added expired label and added new lawsuits. Some patents are no longer listed as having a lawsuit on google patents, not sure whether those patents are invalidated or not. Whenever patents are invalidated they aren't listed as expired on google patents so we don't know whether they were invalidated or not:

EP2207170 - EXPIRED
EP1873754 - 2026-06-30
EP2144171 - 2028-10-08 - no longer listed as a lawsuit filed on google patents
EP2352147 - 2029-06-23 - no longer listed as a lawsuit filed on google patents
EP2304723 - 2029-06-23 - no longer listed as a lawsuit filed on google patents
EP3364414 - 2029-12-11
EP3605534 - 2031-06-23 lawsuit
EP2589046 - 2031-06-23 lawsuit
EP3079153 - 2031-06-23 lawsuit
EP3422346 - 2031-06-23 lawsuit
EP3079152 - 2031-06-23 lawsuit
EP2757560 - 2031-06-23 lawsuit
EP2625688 - 2031-10-04

Re: Opus Patent Pool

Reply #29 –
patent list was updated on November 1st 2024: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6320833a3a69fc3ce89db3ff/t/67444395be0cee777c3fc0a0/1732526997801/Opus+Patent+Pool+-+Licensed+Patents+-+01+Nov+2024.pdf

Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation (“NTT”) has joined the patent pool with 1 patent, they are also now a licensor.

Not sure if any other patents have been added or removed in this updated list.

Re: Opus Patent Pool

Reply #30 –
https://opus-codec.org/license/
"Opus is a completely open, royalty-free, highly versatile audio codec. Opus is unmatched for interactive speech and music transmission over the Internet, but is also intended for storage and streaming applications."
"Opus has a freely available specification, a BSD-licensed, high-quality reference encoder and decoder, and protective, royalty-free licenses for the required patents."

According to the situation here, we can take an open source work and patent it with minor changes. Or we can use it in our own closed source work without being accountable to anyone. So, it seems that something being open source often does not mean anything. In fact, it can lead to more problematic results.

For example, Microsoft recently patented "Asymmetric Numeral Systems" (RANS), which was developed by Jarek Duda and is completely free and open. However, not even a proper change had been made to ANS. Despite stating this many times and objecting, they still got the patent. Patenting is quite expensive and must be obtained internationally. An ordinary person cannot afford these costs. Jarek Duda unfortunately fell into such a situation.

For example, I wonder why FLAC has not been patented with a small change until now. Or I don't understand why lossy codecs like Opus/AAC/MPEG are patented so much.

Re: Opus Patent Pool

Reply #31 –
Quote from: genuine on
For example, I wonder why FLAC has not been patented with a small change until now.
Because the techniques FLAC uses are truly ancient. LPC dates back to the 1960's, and Rice published on Rice coding in 1971. Also, there already were a number of different peer-reviewed and widely cited research papers on lossless audio compression using those techniques when FLAC was introduced back in 2000.

In the case of Opus and ANS, the patent applications were dubious and only shortly after specifications/papers were published. They were cutting edge. The techniques FLAC used weren't.
Music: sounds arranged such that they construct feelings.

Re: Opus Patent Pool

Reply #32 –
Quote from: ktf on
Quote from: genuine on
For example, I wonder why FLAC has not been patented with a small change until now.
Because the techniques FLAC uses are truly ancient. LPC dates back to the 1960's, and Rice published on Rice coding in 1971. Also, there already were a number of different peer-reviewed and widely cited research papers on lossless audio compression using those techniques when FLAC was introduced back in 2000.

In the case of Opus and ANS, the patent applications were dubious and only shortly after specifications/papers were published. They were cutting edge. The techniques FLAC used weren't.
I don't think there is any real innovation or improvement made to codecs such as OPUS or AAC in the patents received. I think the aim here is to prevent certain things. And they spend a lot of money for this.
If any codec that includes innovation/difference is open source, it is likely to experience the patent problems mentioned here. In this case, open source doesn't really mean anything.
If the developed product is really good, the big fish can patent it without asking anyone, with the lie of adding/improving. However, one or more developers can never afford the costs of international patents. It is not surprising that many really successful codecs remain closed source. Nobody wants their own hard work to be stolen by others. And no one wants to watch those who steal and profit from it. At least I wouldn't want to be in such a situation.

Re: Opus Patent Pool

Reply #33 –
Quote from: ktf on
Quote from: genuine on
For example, I wonder why FLAC has not been patented with a small change until now.
Because the techniques FLAC uses are truly ancient. LPC dates back to the 1960's, and Rice published on Rice coding in 1971. Also, there already were a number of different peer-reviewed and widely cited research papers on lossless audio compression using those techniques when FLAC was introduced back in 2000.

There was this discussion: https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,124006.msg1025323.html#msg1025323
Thinking aloud I could only come up with two potential novelties - partitioning and wasted bits. You got any references on those techniques?

Re: Opus Patent Pool

Reply #34 –
Quote from: genuine on
Quote from: ktf on
Quote from: genuine on
For example, I wonder why FLAC has not been patented with a small change until now.
Because the techniques FLAC uses are truly ancient. LPC dates back to the 1960's, and Rice published on Rice coding in 1971. Also, there already were a number of different peer-reviewed and widely cited research papers on lossless audio compression using those techniques when FLAC was introduced back in 2000.

In the case of Opus and ANS, the patent applications were dubious and only shortly after specifications/papers were published. They were cutting edge. The techniques FLAC used weren't.
I don't think there is any real innovation or improvement made to codecs such as OPUS or AAC in the patents received. I think the aim here is to prevent certain things. And they spend a lot of money for this.
If any codec that includes innovation/difference is open source, it is likely to experience the patent problems mentioned here. In this case, open source doesn't really mean anything.
If the developed product is really good, the big fish can patent it without asking anyone, with the lie of adding/improving. However, one or more developers can never afford the costs of international patents. It is not surprising that many really successful codecs remain closed source. Nobody wants their own hard work to be stolen by others. And no one wants to watch those who steal and profit from it. At least I wouldn't want to be in such a situation.

Well AAC-LC is well over 20 years old and Redhat has declared it fit as patent free status.

Re: Opus Patent Pool

Reply #35 –
This does not change the fact that AAC-LC was patented at the time. In addition, it is necessary to spend time and money to cancel this patent. It is necessary to think carefully why Redhat cannot do the same for other AAC derivatives.
If the resulting product really works, the big fish will take turns patenting it. The thing is that simple.

https://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/en/ff/amm/broadcast-streaming/aaclc.html

Re: Opus Patent Pool

Reply #36 –
Quote from: genuine on
This does not change the fact that AAC-LC was patented at the time.
Since everybody knows it, can you elaborate why it's relevant to mention it in given context of current discussion?

Quote from: genuine on
It is necessary to think carefully why Redhat cannot do the same for other AAC derivatives.
It's trivial and answer is very simple.

LC-AAC was released in 1997, while HE-AAC v1-v2 in 2003-2004. At that moment Redhat has included only LC-AAC decoder because HE-AAC patents were still active.

Good rule of thumb that decoding patents expire after 22 years.  HE-AAC v1 decoding will be patent free this year 2025, and v2 by 2026.
Related discussion https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,118084.msg974640.html#msg974640
LC-AAC decoding is much more important as it covers the major part of bitrate range. HE-AAC is applicable only for low bitrates, so people don't show relevant interest in these days.
 

Re: Opus Patent Pool

Reply #37 –
btc; Thanks for the information. It's all patented, okay, got it.