Moderator comment
Currently the Vorbis patent issue covers these threads:
Vorbis development, status & patent issues PART 1 - NON-technical discussion (This thread) (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=13686)
Vorbis development, status & patent issues PART 2 - Technical discussion (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=13531)
/Moderator comment
To my ears, the compromises Vorbis makes at 64kbps are much more obvious than those of some other codecs. Simple as that.
As I noted, the stereo problems are much more annoying over headphones than they would be over speakers, listening off-centre.
What amazes me is when people say (see Slashdot!) "I encode at vorbis q0 and it sounds perfect". Do you encode stereo content? Do you own a pair of headphones? Can't you hear that all the sounds that used to be over there and over there, are now all lumped together in the centre?
Obviously not. They're probably like my wife: just can't hear stereo. Some people, having determined this fact, decide that they're not qualified to comment on audio quality, and leave it at that. But hey - on Slashdot, everyone is an expert! And Vorbis must be the best.
Cheers,
David.
To my ears, the compromises Vorbis makes at 64kbps are much more obvious than those of some other codecs. Simple as that.
As you point out with the phrase "to my ears," this is all subjective and dependent on personal preference. None of the codecs are transparent at 64kbps, so they all have differences from the original. It comes down to which difference is more annoying, and that's highly subjective.
When I listen to my q0 Vorbis files by themselves, I don't notice the stereo collapse or the high frequency boost. Real Audio's temporal smearing (Proposed Motto: "We make real hi-hats sound like real maracas.") on the other hand is obvious even when I listen to it by itself. This is essentially the definition of differences versus artifacts. Differences are loss of fidelity. Artifacts are obviously foreign sounds. On 99% of my music collection, Vorbis produces differences, not artifacts.
Don't get me wrong, Vorbis needs to improve, and it will improve. Monty is working on Vorbis 1.1 already. However, keep in mind that the current q0 mode is still essentially the same as it was back in RC3, except for noise normalization added in 1.0 and minor tuning bug fixes in 1.0.1. It was intended to be a respectable first cut. And it's patent-free. Yet it has still managed to come out third best, in a close field of leaders, and beating WMA with its tons of money and development time behind it. It's not perfect, but I'd say it's pretty darn good.
Just my two cents,
Carsten Haese
Ogg Traffic Editor, Xiph.org Foundation
Edit: typo fix
Differences are loss of fidelity. Artifacts are obviously foreign sounds. On 99% of my music collection, Vorbis produces differences, not artifacts.
On 99.9% of my music collection, Vorbis produces an instantly audible, very annoying HF boost.
It's a difference, and it sure as hell is an artifact. I cannot say that of MP3Pro or HE-AAC.
Vorbis is simply no longer the top contender in low bitrate audio. It's a respectable second ranker, but sure as hell not the best. That's _objective_ data that this test produced.
However, keep in mind that the current q0 mode is still essentially the same as it was back in RC3, except for noise normalization added in 1.0 and minor tuning bug fixes in 1.0.1. It was intended to be a respectable first cut.
...and no improvement has been made ever since.
If Vorbis does not develop further, it will fall even more behind. And as for 1.1, I'll apply what Xiph applied to Matroska/MCF: I'll comment when I see the code, not the claims.
Edit: rewordings
And it's patent-free.
It is claimed to be patent free by Xiph. However there are no single official document online or any other documents of patent searches available.
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. And this time the FhG guys specified at least one infringement: Vorbis' usage of windowed MDCT filterbanks with adaptive window switching.
On 99.9% of my music collection, Vorbis produces an instantly audible, very annoying HF boost.
It's a difference, and it sure as hell is an artifact. I cannot say that of MP3Pro or HE-AAC.
This just underlines the point that I was making. The distinction between differences and artifacts is often a subjective matter of personal taste. Our preferences are different, so we will always agree to disagree.
Vorbis is simply no longer the top contender in low bitrate audio. It's a respectable second ranker, but sure as hell not the best.
I never said Vorbis was the top contender. Thank you for agreeing with me.
However, keep in mind that the current q0 mode is still essentially the same as it was back in RC3, except for noise normalization added in 1.0 and minor tuning bug fixes in 1.0.1. It was intended to be a respectable first cut.
...and no improvement has been made ever since.
Well, there was a small improvement from 1.0 to 1.0.1, but I know your point is that the HF boost is still the Number One problem.
If Vorbis does not develop further, it will fall even more behind.
Monty is well aware of this fact.
And as for 1.1, I'll apply what Xiph applied to Matroska/MCF: I'll comment when I see the code, not the claims.
Well, the seeming lack of movement is par for the course for Monty. Throughout all the previous releases, improvements happened in fits and starts, with each release being significantly better than the previous one.
Also, let's not forget that Monty spent considerable time on implementing portable player support, which was a necessary step towards greater recognition. So, Vorbis may not the best low-bitrate codec on the planet, but it's the best low-bitrate codec that my Neuros player can handle.
Best regards,
Carsten Haese
Ogg Traffic Editor, Xiph.org Foundation
I must say some things regarding Vorbis, WMA, HE-AAC and such...
From the algorithmic point of view, Vorbis is more effective than WMA (which is a dumb MDCT based codec with window switching and perceptual noise substitution, M/S stereo and vector quantization - i.e. - basic stereophonic codec described in 1992 patent, with addition of noise substitution)
Vorbis, from the other hand - has several more tools, like various lossy stereo coding modes, adaptive huffman codebooks (that won't help that much) and ability to 'peel' the bitstream (never really widely adopted)
HE-AAC has everything that these two codecs have but with addition of powerful TNS algorithm, very effective bitstream syntax, SBR algorithm for very low bit rates etc...
So, WMA sounds very good for the basic set of tools it has - because they tuned encoder well (as good as it can be, actually - not that much - Vorbis can of course be better than current state, but - IMHO - it can never be better than HE-AAC without changing the bitstream and adding new tools.
This just underlines the point that I was making. The distinction between differences and artifacts is often a subjective matter of personal taste. Our preferences are different, so we will always agree to disagree.
What the test strongly suggests is that for most people, the arti^Wdifferences that vorbis produces, are more annoying than those of MP3Pro and HE-AAC.
Also, let's not forget that Monty spent considerable time on implementing portable player support, which was a necessary step towards greater recognition. So, Vorbis may not the best low-bitrate codec on the planet, but it's the best low-bitrate codec that my Neuros player can handle.
Portable support an advantage for Vorbis? Hah! You can't even get a Neuros in Europe.
And it's patent-free.
It is claimed to be patent free. However there are no single official document online or any other documents of patent searches available.
The fact that the findings aren't available online doesn't mean they don't exist. However, I have asked one of the people that were involved in the patent search if some evidence can be made available to appease constant skeptics like you.
Update: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-sv...03May/0059.html (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2003May/0059.html) contains some information about this.
Of course, you are free to do your own search. Vorbis is completely open, and Patent documents are available online.
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. And this time the FhG guys specified at least one infringement: Vorbis' usage of windowed MDCT filterbanks with adaptive window switching.
Do you happen to have a patent number to go with that allegation? Words are cheap, and FhG can throw around buzzwords as long as they want, but without specific evidence, this is just hollow FUD that puts them in the same league as SCO with their Linux IP claims.
Also, even if there is a patent that covers a similar technique, that doesn't automatically mean that Vorbis is infringing. There might be prior art, or the patent might not apply due to significant differences between the patented method and Vorbis. We will never know for sure until an infringement suit is brought before a court of law, but as you said, FhG is not interested in doing so. Why? They say it's because they don't have anything to gain. I say it's because they have a lot to lose. It's much more fruitful to make hollow claims and scare away the gullible than to fail proving your claim in court and lose a valuable patent.
Best regards,
Carsten Haese
Ogg Traffic Editor, Xiph.org Foundation
Edit: Added link to more info about the patent searches.
They say it's because they don't have anything to gain. I say it's because they have a lot to lose. It's much more fruitful to make hollow claims and scare away the gullible than to fail proving your claim in court and lose a valuable patent.
FhG is an research institute and they usually do not sue for infringing of their patents - if someone sues Xiph, that could be either Thomson or Dolby, which are in licensing charge for the patented codecs like MP3, AC3 or AAC.
Nobody is doing that because of the simple fact - it would bring more lose than gain anyway - because suing of non-for-profit projects is just not the way things are being done, and anyway - nobody would benefit from that.
And Vorbis is certainly not a competitor to any of those standards - not at the current state of development and market share, at least.
However, I have asked one of the people that were involved in the patent search if some evidence can be made available to appease constant skeptics like you.
Good luck, this was asked several times before.
Nobody from Vorbis has ever wanted to back up the patent-free moniker with any real facts, nobody wants to give any guarantees.
Vorbis has always used 'patents' as an argument against MPC, but the reality is that the situation with Vorbis is no different than the one of MPC. If you're going to throw mud, expect to receive some too.
Show something tangible to support the claims, not again hollow things we are supposed to believe, just as we were supposed to believe bitrate peeling would be a major feature advantage of Vorbis, like, 4 years ago already?
Do you happen to have a patent number to go with that allegation? Words are cheap, and FhG can throw around buzzwords as long as they want, but without specific evidence, this is just hollow FUD that puts them in the same league as SCO with their Linux IP claims.
Difference is, Linux vendors such as HP are idemnifying their clients from SCO's claims. Is Xiph.org going to do the same?
The fact that the findings aren't available online doesn't mean they don't exist. However, I have asked one of the people that were involved in the patent search if some evidence can be made available to appease constant skeptics like you.
Great, finally we will get something online about this. I and many people are looking forward to this.
And I don't think it is unreasonable to ask some evidence of something which is usually just taken as granted by many people..
I don't have/know the actual patent number, but the description of the patent is pretty clear, so it shoudn't be too hard to verify.
Update: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-sv...03May/0059.html (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2003May/0059.html) contains some information about this.
I'm sorry that I'm not able to give a clear black and white answer on this issue, but one is certainly not possible. After all, aren't hyperlinks patented? We do the best we can.
Hehe. The situation is still the same.
However, I have asked one of the people that were involved in the patent search if some evidence can be made available to appease constant skeptics like you.
Good luck, this was asked several times before.
Nobody from Vorbis has ever wanted to back up the patent-free moniker with any real facts, nobody wants to give any guarantees.
Vorbis has always used 'patents' as an argument against MPC, but the reality is that the situation with Vorbis is no different than the one of MPC. If you're going to throw mud, expect to receive some too.
Show something tangible to support the claims, not again hollow things we are supposed to believe, just as we were supposed to believe bitrate peeling would be a major feature advantage of Vorbis, like, 4 years ago already?
Do you happen to have a patent number to go with that allegation? Words are cheap, and FhG can throw around buzzwords as long as they want, but without specific evidence, this is just hollow FUD that puts them in the same league as SCO with their Linux IP claims.
Difference is, Linux vendors such as HP are idemnifying their clients from SCO's claims. Is Xiph.org going to do the same?
Please let me know when you're interested in bringing this discussion back to the rational level on which it began. Until then, I consider this discussion closed and have nothing more to add.
Sincerely,
Carsten Haese
Ogg Traffic Editor, Xiph.org Foundation
Rational level? Sure, here are the facts:
1) Vorbis keeps touting patent-free-ness as a major feature.
2) Nobody is willing to turn up any verifyable evidence that this is true. (And we asked _several_ times.)
3) Claims are made the the contrary.
4) Vorbis claims that is FUD, but is not willing to give any guarantees about
it's patent-free-ness either.
5) Vorbis dismisses other (better) codecs as having 'patent issues'.
You see my big problem here?
I don't have/know the actual patent number, but the description of the patent is pretty clear, so it shoudn't be too hard to verify.
US5357594 (Not from FhG, but one of the Ahead AAC developers was questioning this specifically)
Please let me know when you're interested in bringing this discussion back to the rational level on which it began. Until then, I consider this discussion closed and have nothing more to add.
I sure hope you will at least provide some patent search documentations you promised.
Thank you.
US5357594 (Not from FhG, but one of the Ahead AAC developers was questioning this specifically)
Actually, it was a nice discussion on IBC2003 regarding this one - although not related to Vorbis, but it applies to Vorbis case as well to my best knowledge.
I find it extremely hard to avoid this one if you are using adaptive window switched MDCT filterbank in your codec.
US5357594 (Not from FhG, but one of the Ahead AAC developers was questioning this specifically)
This one is analysis/synthesis windowing.
US5214742 is windows switching.
I am also wondering about intensity stereo, used in both Vorbis and Speex.
1) Vorbis keeps touting patent-free-ness as a major feature.
And it may continue to do so until it's been proven to be infringing.
2) Nobody is willing to turn up any verifyable evidence that this is true. (And we asked _several_ times.)
See the link above for explanations.
3) Claims are made the the contrary.
See my responses above.
4) Vorbis claims that is FUD, but is not willing to give any guarantees about
it's patent-free-ness either.
That's because Xiph.org can't afford to indemnify anybody. You get what you pay for.
5) Vorbis dismisses other (better) codecs as having 'patent issues'.
I am not fit to comment on MPC, since I don't know enough about it, but then again, we're talking about low bitrate performance here, so MPC is out the window. And you do agree that the remainder of the competitors, namely MP3Pro and HE-AAC do have patent issues, don't you?
Thanks for listening.
Difference is, Linux vendors such as HP are idemnifying their clients from SCO's claims. Is Xiph.org going to do the same?
Actually some of the major ones are not, I remember names but at least one of the major ones said they wouldn't.
FhG is an research institute and they usually do not sue for infringing of their patents
FhG are masters of FUD, without bringing lawsuits - that is why Lame is hosted on russian servers, they made all the noises and sent the offical solicitor letters, but no lawsuits have even come about - even for mp3...
FhG are never going to be interested in Ogg Vorbis, for a start (correct me if I am wrong) the holding organization has no serious capital to be handed over in damages, and even then the outcry would (at least from Open Source Community) would fund an effective defence.
I sure hope you will at least provide some patent search documentations you promised.
Thank you.
I didn't promise anything, but if something tangible is available, I'll let you know.
I am also wondering about intensity stereo, used in both Vorbis and Speex.
Those probably do not apply to Vorbis as they all talk about using stereo coding in scalefactor bands. Patent numbers: EP0910927 and EP0910928.
About speex: looks like a CELP codec to me, I don't know if that is patented.
Menno
Here's some other 'rational' thing that I have an axe to grind with:
Vorbis keeps touting itself as supporting features such as bitrate peeling, while still not having any usable utility to do so, and in the meantime downplays things like Matroska/MFC because 'they haven't actually made anything yet'.
You are now implying Vorbis is good because it has spent a lot of time on portable support. If I look at the results (0, as far as it applies to me), I have to seriously wonder whether that time would not have been MUCH better spent on keeping the codec up to date.
It went from being the best codec in some areas, with some issues in other areas, and a lot of promise, to something that's no longer the best in any area, still having serious issues in other areas, and having seriously failed to deliver any of the promises. All of this in space of less than 2 years.
Vorbis went from something that was great because it was just good to something that must be kept alive by its 'supporters' spewing FUD at other things.
I know the reason of some of this degradation was mismanagement and that these issues have been 'fixed', but I have seen no proof or indication of any improvement in the situation lately, on the contrary.
I'm in the situation where I am very seriously wonder whether the time I spent on Vorbis was not just wasted work, and I'd hate _that_ to be true.
FhG are masters of FUD, without bringing lawsuits - that is why Lame is hosted on russian servers, they made all the noises and sent the offical solicitor letters, but no lawsuits have even come about - even for mp3...
Well, they never brought lawsuits because everyone they mailed acomplished to what they demanded.
SoloH is dead. 8Hz-mp3 is dead. Blade and Lame are only (legally) distributable in source form...
If someone didn't acomplish what they wanted, it's pretty much probable that FhG would bring lawsuits.
performance here, so MPC is out the window. And you do agree that the remainder of the competitors, namely MP3Pro and HE-AAC do have patent issues, don't you?
Thanks for listening.
Crap,
MP3Pro and HE-AAC DO NOT have patent issues, they have clear defined patent list, and well established patent pool - so the company that pays knows what are they paying for. There is also an ISO policy about being fair and reasonable and granting everyone license under equal terms.
FhG are masters of FUD, without bringing lawsuits - that is why Lame is hosted on russian servers, they made all the noises and sent the offical solicitor letters, but no lawsuits have even come about - even for mp3...
Well - they achieved what they wanted, and it is not FUD - because to anyone it is clear that any MP3 encoder / decoder is actually using their patents. Unfortunately, that's the way things go - there are some unavoidable things in MP3.
2) Nobody is willing to turn up any verifyable evidence that this is true. (And we asked _several_ times.)
See the link above for explanations.
We already got it. I see more than some vague references and second-guessing what AOL though in there. Note that the original search was actually rather limited, not much guarantee there.
4) Vorbis claims that is FUD, but is not willing to give any guarantees about
it's patent-free-ness either.
That's because Xiph.org can't afford to indemnify anybody. You get what you pay for.
Exactly! NOTHING
5) Vorbis dismisses other (better) codecs as having 'patent issues'.
I am not fit to comment on MPC, since I don't know enough about it, but then again, we're talking about low bitrate performance here, so MPC is out the window
MPC is still the best codec out there as low as 128kbps. I wouldn't throw it out of the window so quickly, just like all the other Vorbis supporters like to do because it has 'patent issues'.
FhG are masters of FUD, without bringing lawsuits - that is why Lame is hosted on russian servers,
Lame hosted on russian servers, well sure, but also on many others..
Umm, check http://mitiok.free.fr/ (http://mitiok.free.fr/)
I see at least: France, Finland, Netherlands, Germany, Poland there alone.
Lame is also hosted in many other places, including US servers (at least Afterdawn), and in dozens of other countries as well..
But this was Off-topic, so no need to continue this..
they have clear defined patent list, and well established patent pool - so the company that pays knows what are they paying for.
That is exactly what Vorbis doesn't have. Since Xiph never makes any guarantees or shows any proof, companies interested in using Vorbis can never know if some hidden patent will show up tomorrow and bite them.
dead. Blade and Lame are only (legally) distributable in source form...
Funny thing is, even FhGs stuff is dead - Mp3Enc is no longer available.
they have clear defined patent list, and well established patent pool - so the company that pays knows what are they paying for.
That is exactly what Vorbis doesn't have. Since Xiph never makes any guarantees or shows any proof, companies interested in using Vorbis can never know if some hidden patent will show up tomorrow and bite them.
Well, the hidden patents will bite you anyway. The thing is, we can't even _know_ if what FhG is spouting is FUD or not. Xiph has so far refused to give any useable details about what they did in their patent search. They don't give any guarantees (quoting former CEO). So what's left exactly? Some vague implications and assumptions?
The situation for Ogg FLAC and Ogg Speex is not any better.
Funny thing is, even FhGs stuff is dead - Mp3Enc is no longer available.
It is available - inside MusicMatch, inside Adobe Audition...
FhG was never really about dealing with end users, they would rather deal with companies that license their technologies, and these companies by their turn deal with the users.
So much, that they created a branch (Opticom) to deal with sales and support for end users.
That is exactly what Vorbis doesn't have. Since Xiph never makes any guarantees or shows any proof, companies interested in using Vorbis can never know if some hidden patent will show up tomorrow and bite them
Which is exactly the reason why no serious big company implements Vorbis - it has legally unclear patent status, no serious backing / idemnifying from a big company (see Linux case).
On the other hand, standards like MP2/MP3/AAC/GSM/CELP/AMR/G.723/G.729... have clear and straightforward licensing models, UN bodies (ITU and ISO) behind the guarantee that patents will be granted on equal-opportunity basis, under fair and reasonable terms - in many cases cheap enough for most companies, etc..
So far, there were no "submarine" patents, except one for MP3 which , I think, has been dealt with (either they went into the patent pool, or they just didn't have the stuff they claimed, I dunno)
Also, there is a great deal of research institutes and expert companies behind them making it harder to believe that they contain something unknown.
Which is exactly the reason why no serious big company implements Vorbis
Rio have implemented it, their holding company DNNA is big and serious.
US5214742 is windows switching.
Ok, so.. is there any reason to say that Vorbis is NOT infringing this patent, and if so, what?
Which is exactly the reason why no serious big company implements Vorbis - it has legally unclear patent status, no serious backing / idemnifying from a big company (see Linux case).
I think it's actually a funny situation. Vorbis is completely free, but anyone willing to implement it needs to do a very expensive patent search to be relatively safe in case of litigation.
Which is exactly the reason why no serious big company implements Vorbis
Rio have implemented it, their holding company DNNA is big and serious.
Well, so do several big games.
I know from personal experience this is a bit of a snowball effect though, if they see someone implementing it, they assume it's safe and take the jump as well. I seriously doubt Rio did patent searches, or one of the game developing shops did either.
That doesn't prevent the bomb from dropping just as much as it did with MP3 in 1996.
they have clear defined patent list, and well established patent pool - so the company that pays knows what are they paying for.
That is exactly what Vorbis doesn't have. Since Xiph never makes any guarantees or shows any proof, companies interested in using Vorbis can never know if some hidden patent will show up tomorrow and bite them.
Patents can bite anybody, whether they already have patents on their technology or not. It is the nature of patent law that you can just sit on your invention until enough people use it, and then sue. The simple fact that Thomson Multimedia tell you what patents they do own doesn't give you any guarantee that they're not using any technology that's patented by somebody else. The only difference is that the risk is somewhat smaller, but it's still there.
At least with Vorbis, the situation is extremely clear. All the code is open, so Thomson would have all the evidence they'd need. They say they don't sue because because Xiph doesn't have any money, but why don't they at least try for a cease-and-desist? Why haven't they sent letters of infringement to Monty, like they sent to the developers of free MP3 encoders? I don't have the answers, but this striking disparity makes me wonder.
At least with Vorbis, the situation is extremely clear. All the code is open, so Thomson would have all the evidence they'd need. They say they don't sue because because Xiph doesn't have any money, but why don't they at least try for a cease-and-desist? Why haven't they sent letters of infringement to Monty, like they sent to the developers of free MP3 encoders? I don't have the answers, but this striking disparity makes me wonder.
Because quite simply, FUD is more effective if it is not adequetly countered.
You can still sue when Vorbis gets too big. (And they might do this, even if they _dont_ have any good grounds to do so, see SCO example)
Just a bit off-topic, but it is a very rare case to see something like this what happened just now:
33 User(s) are reading this topic (11 Guests and 2 Anonymous Users)
20 Members: Atlantis, Dibrom, odnorf, rjamorim, upNorth, Ivan Dimkovic, The Link, todd, Messer, Case, c_haese, zokik, rpop, Phenos, phong, phwip, HMage, spoon, krys, ViPER1313
Patents can bite anybody, whether they already have patents on their technology or not. It is the nature of patent law that you can just sit on your invention until enough people use it, and then sue. The simple fact that Thomson Multimedia tell you what patents they do own doesn't give you any guarantee that they're not using any technology that's patented by somebody else. The only difference is that the risk is somewhat smaller, but it's still there.
Wrong - in MP3/AAC case, time proven that there are no submarine patents - and, if there is one, usually it is much more profitable for the patent-holder to make an agreement with the patent pool, and get the overall % of the patent-pool money, which can't be the case for vorbis.
At least with Vorbis, the situation is extremely clear. All the code is open, so Thomson would have all the evidence they'd need. They say they don't sue because because Xiph doesn't have any money, but why don't they at least try for a cease-and-desist? Why haven't they sent letters of infringement to Monty, like they sent to the developers of free MP3 encoders? I don't have the answers, but this striking disparity makes me wonder.
Why would they? You were presented with one Dolby patent that Vorbis has a very small chance to avoid - the fact you are not sued or inform that you should stop your work doesn't mean nothing at all - patent holder could sue/warn on its own behalf and will, there is no rule for that.
This does mean for other companies a lot - you didn't invest a $ in proving that you are in the clear - and you expect everyone to trust you (and what is the back up? couple of developers? come on), or to invest hell load of money to check that - which is exactly the reason why your technology has a proliferation near 0...
With that attitude "come.. and check out by yourself if you want, it's free" you are not going to progress a lot...
Just a bit off-topic, but it is a very rare case to see something like this what happened just now:
33 User(s) are reading this topic (11 Guests and 2 Anonymous Users)
20 Members: Atlantis, Dibrom, odnorf, rjamorim, upNorth, Ivan Dimkovic, The Link, todd, Messer, Case, c_haese, zokik, rpop, Phenos, phong, phwip, HMage, spoon, krys, ViPER1313
I think Vorbis development in general and several issues touched here are important to many people and this is why there is such great interested to this thread and such a high posting rate.
I'm sorry if some of my initial posts were rather harsh, but this is of concern to me and many of the issues have not been adequatly addressed, IMHO.
A long time ago (actually, around two weeks), in a galaxy far far away (actually, in some place called Amsterdam)...
Evil AAC Developer #1: There's too much Vorbis loving around for my liking
Evil AAC Developer #2: I agree. We need to do something about it
EAACD1: What can we do?
EAACD2: I know, let's get some People Who Support Vorbis, and brainwash them to support AAC instead!
EAACD1: Yeah! Great idea! Who should we get?
EAACD2: We'll find them on some audio compression forum I guess.
EAACD1: Oh, that's a good one. Let's go for the big fish. Forum Owner From America.
EAACD2: That's a good one. Let's get Forum Administrator From Finland too. We still need one more
EAACD1: Okay, we need to strike at the heart of Vorbis itself. What about Popular Parttime Vorbis Developer From Belgium?
EAACD2: Yeah! That would really screw Vorbis. So how do we go about doing this?
EAACD1: We lure them over here to attend some product show, and then brainwash them!
EAACD2: How do we lure them here?
EAACD1: Easy. Free lollipops.
EAACD2: Yeah! They will never resist.
EAACD1: Okay, now how should we brainwash them.
EAACD2: With lots of lollipop, booze and crack of course, this is Amsterdam after all.
EAACD1: I think it'll be easier if a female tries to convince them to follow the path of the AAC
EAACD2: Good idea, I have this female friend, they will never resist her charms...
EAACD1: Great! Okay, what shall we do with them once they have become our mindless robots?
EAACD2: I know, it's only 2 weeks until the results of some listening test which AAC is bound to win. We unleash our robots then to spread the word about AAC!
EAACD1: Ohh yeah! Vorbis is so screwed!
EAACD1 and EAACD2's eyes gleam with an evil reddish glow...
apologies in advance if i offended anyone. it's a joke, really
EAACD1: Easy. Free lollipops.
They were mints, actually!
Menno
US5214742 is windows switching.
Ok, so.. is there any reason to say that Vorbis is NOT infringing this patent, and if so, what?
The problem is that analyzing whether a technology infringes on a patent is usually a lengthy process that involves lawyers for both sides arguing before a court of law, interpreting their patent, interpreting the technology, etc. I don't have enough insight into patent law (or Vorbis minutiae for that matter, I'm just a software engineer who pretends to be a journalist from time to time) to make an informed comment about this patent, but I will try to get Monty to comment on it. This, of course, means that he'd have to suspend working on Vorbis 1.1 in order to do so
US5214742 is windows switching.
Ok, so.. is there any reason to say that Vorbis is NOT infringing this patent, and if so, what?
The problem is that analyzing whether a technology infringes on a patent is usually a lengthy process that involves lawyers for both sides arguing before a court of law, interpreting their patent, interpreting the technology, etc. I don't have enough insight into patent law (or Vorbis minutiae for that matter, I'm just a software engineer who pretends to be a journalist from time to time) to make an informed comment about this patent, but I will try to get Monty to comment on it. This, of course, means that he'd have to suspend working on Vorbis 1.1 in order to do so
Right, I hope that you or Monty or someone provides some information regarding this. And it shouldn't take so much time if the alleged already made patent search documents become available, so everybody can read what the search documents say about this.
Right, I hope that you or Monty or someone provides some information regarding this. And it shouldn't take so much time if the alleged already made patent search documents become available, so everybody can read what the search documents say about this.
I just talked to Jack on IRC, and he says, unfortunately, this:
13:29 < jack> we can't release the patent opinion even if we had another one done.
13:29 < jack> i don't know what we can do to convince these people
He didn't elaborate on the reasons, but as I said before, it probably comes down to the fact that a patent search is a paid service, and the outcome of the patent search is only available to the people that paid for it. I'll still try to get a "layman's opinion" (as opposed to attorney's opinion, since using the word layman to refer to Monty seems very inappropriate) from Monty about the specific patent number that was mentioned, but I'm afraid that not even that would satisfy the skeptics.
So, given this new information (or lack thereof), what would it take to convince you that Vorbis is patent-free?
what would it take to convince you that Vorbis is patent-free?
Proof! Factual data. HA is all about it. If you come here claiming something and don't provide any kind of hard data, you can't expect the readers to take it for granted.
So, given this new information (or lack thereof), what would it take to convince you that Vorbis is patent-free?
Right, like Roberto said, the issue is not whether you can convince some individual people or not. The issue is that you advertize vorbis as patent free, yet there's awfully little any documents or anything available which actually support this.
Instead there are patent(s) which seem to apply to Vorbis, but no proofs or any documents have been made available to counter the claims (which have been going on as long as I can remember).
So, the question is, is Xiph's advertizing Vorbis as patent free correct or not. This is probably the most important Vorbis related question there is, since being patent free is the single most important claimed feature of Vorbis.
Here's what pisses me off about Vorbis and Xiph.org. Don't tell us a bunch of shit that you can't back up. Maybe part of the problem was the former CEO, I don't know him or what part he played. I can say his press releases were beyond over-the-top as far as cliches and marketing non-sense is concerned.
We read about Vorbis being great, Vorbis being peelable, Vorbis being patent free, Vorbis 1.1 being even better, and Monty being busy. Well that's nice and all, but all I can find on the Xiph.org web pages are Vorbis 1.0+ which is basically the same thing we got over a year ago.
I know it's free and I shouldn't complain, but please don't tell me things you can't back up. The best way to market your codec is to make it the best. Otherwise get in line.
what would it take to convince you that Vorbis is patent-free?
Proof! Factual data. HA is all about it. If you come here claiming something and don't provide any kind of hard data, you can't expect the readers to take it for granted.
Could you be a bit more specific? Factual data of what?
Given the premise that the patent opinion can not be disclosed, I am being put into an impossible position here. It's like asking me to prove that there are no pink elephants by finding every elephant on the planet and pointing out that it is, indeed, not pink. And even then you could claim that there are pink elephants if I just looked hard enough.
It is a FACT that there was a patent search done by Xiph, and Xiph continued development on Ogg Vorbis. It is a FACT that AOL did the same, and deemed Ogg Vorbis suitable for inclusion in WinAmp. Unfortunately, that's not proof, otherwise this debate wouldn't be necessary.
So, please, which facts would you like to see as proof?
I can say his press releases were beyond over-the-top as far as cliches and marketing non-sense is concerned.
Don't forget he also fell for the paranoia (spread by Slashdot) about Thompson starting charging fees for every MP3 decoder implementation, free or not.
So, please, which facts would you like to see as proof?
Well, for starters an explanation why patent# US5214742 about windows switching doesn't apply to Vorbis.
Given the premise that the patent opinion can not be disclosed
That's something I don't understand. Why can't it be disclosed? To prevent the lawyer getting screwed if patents are actually found in vorbis code?
Sometimes you could even get the impression that Xiph.org is not interested in Vorbis development/tuning at all, considering that Garf's excellent tuning haven't yet been merged into the main source tree.
So, the question is, is Xiph's advertizing Vorbis as patent free correct or not. This is probably the most important Vorbis related question there is, since being patent free is the single most important claimed feature of Vorbis.
The answer is simple: Yes. An accused person is innocent until proven guilty. A technology is patent free until proven to be infringing in a court of law. Since Vorbis has not been proven to be infringing on any patents (in fact, it has as yet not even been credibly accused of doing so), it is justified to say it's patent free.
Consider the following analogy: A friend of yours has been smoking for most of his life, and he decides to give up smoking. So he says that he quit smoking. You ask him to prove it. Of course, he can't prove that he's quit smoking for good, because that would require looking into the future. All he can prove to a reasonable degree is that he is not smoking anymore. Only on the day he dies after not having smoked for the rest of his life can he prove that he actually quit smoking.
So, the ex-smoker can claim to have quit smoking until events transpire that prove otherwise. And by the same token, Vorbis can claim that it is patent free until somebody proves otherwise.
Edit: typo fix
So, please, which facts would you like to see as proof?
Well, for starters an explanation why patent# US5214742 about windows switching doesn't apply to Vorbis.
This is a reasonable request. I'd like to know the answer myself, but all I can say for now is that I'll try to find out.
Given the premise that the patent opinion can not be disclosed
That's something I don't understand. Why can't it be disclosed? To prevent the lawyer getting screwed if patents are actually found in vorbis code?
I am just guessing here, since Jack didn't comment on the reasons, but I'm guessing it's for pretty much the same reason that MS doesn't give out the source code to their software. It's intellectual property that was obtained for a price. Information wants to be free, and it's such a shame that sometimes it is not.
Consider the following analogy: A friend of yours has been smoking for most of his life, and he decides to give up smoking. So he says that he quit smoking. You ask him to prove it. Of course, he can't prove that he's quit smoking for good, because that would require looking into the future. All he can prove to a reasonable degree is that he is not smoking anymore. Only on the day he dies after not having smoked for the rest of his life can he prove that he actually quit smoking.
I'd consider this analogy more fitting: A friend of yours is either smoking or not (you don't know for sure). He advertizes and strongly argues that he doesn't smoke and he insists to be strong supporter of healthy lifestyle, though there's something smelly in the air near him.
So, you either have to catch him in the action, or get a doctor's diagnosis which proves that his lungs are clean in order to know for sure..
Consider the following analogy: A friend of yours has been smoking for most of his life, and he decides to give up smoking. So he says that he quit smoking. You ask him to prove it. Of course, he can't prove that he's quit smoking for good, because that would require looking into the future. All he can prove to a reasonable degree is that he is not smoking anymore. Only on the day he dies after not having smoked for the rest of his life can he prove that he actually quit smoking.
I'd consider this analogy more fitting: A friend of yours is either smoking or not (you don't know for sure). He advertizes and strongly argues that he doesn't smoke and he insists to be strong supporter of healthy lifestyle, though there's something smelly in the air near him.
So, you either have to catch him in the action, or get a doctor's diagnosis which proves that his lungs are clean in order to know for sure..
Yes, but until you catch him in the act, all you have is suspicion, not proof. And, to extend your analogy back to the situation that Vorbis is in, this person is living under constant video surveillance, so catching him in the act should be easy
Consider the following analogy: A friend of yours has been smoking for most of his life, and he decides to give up smoking. So he says that he quit smoking. You ask him to prove it. Of course, he can't prove that he's quit smoking for good, because that would require looking into the future. All he can prove to a reasonable degree is that he is not smoking anymore. Only on the day he dies after not having smoked for the rest of his life can he prove that he actually quit smoking.
I'd consider this analogy more fitting: A friend of yours is either smoking or not (you don't know for sure). He advertizes and strongly argues that he doesn't smoke and he insists to be strong supporter of healthy lifestyle, though there's something smelly in the air near him.
So, you either have to catch him in the action, or get a doctor's diagnosis which proves that his lungs are clean in order to know for sure..
Yes, but until you catch him in the act, all you have is suspicion, not proof. And, to extend your analogy back to the situation that Vorbis is in, this person is living under constant video surveillance, so catching him in the act should be easy
Yeah and to further extend this analogy to Vorbis, I think you wouldn't make a bet and risk losing your life-savings that he indeed doesn't smoke. And constant surveillance doesn't mean that there's actually anybody who bothers as long as he's only smoking cigarettes..
Consider the following analogy: A friend of yours has been smoking for most of his life, and he decides to give up smoking. So he says that he quit smoking. You ask him to prove it. Of course, he can't prove that he's quit smoking for good, because that would require looking into the future. All he can prove to a reasonable degree is that he is not smoking anymore. Only on the day he dies after not having smoked for the rest of his life can he prove that he actually quit smoking.
I'd consider this analogy more fitting: A friend of yours is either smoking or not (you don't know for sure). He advertizes and strongly argues that he doesn't smoke and he insists to be strong supporter of healthy lifestyle, though there's something smelly in the air near him.
So, you either have to catch him in the action, or get a doctor's diagnosis which proves that his lungs are clean in order to know for sure..
Yes, but until you catch him in the act, all you have is suspicion, not proof. And, to extend your analogy back to the situation that Vorbis is in, this person is living under constant video surveillance, so catching him in the act should be easy
From my point of view anyone that might be interested in investing a serious amount of money in this person, for whatever reason where the smoking issue matters, would certainly require a doctor's diagnosis. Wouldn't they? Of course this wouldn't guarantee that he would never start again, but at least they would know if he told the truth and could be trusted.
Btw: Interesting discussion
It is a FACT that AOL did the same, and deemed Ogg Vorbis suitable for inclusion in WinAmp.
I quote Jack:
AOL lawyers contacted us some time ago, claiming to be doing something
similar. I have no knowledge if an opinion was written, or anything
other than the two facts: 1) AOL lawyers were digging around in this
area 2) soon after Winamp started shipping Ogg. Several conclusions can
be drawn.
Note the words 'claiming' 'no knowledge' 'anything other than'.
Your conclusion is correct: they deemed it suitable for inclusion of Winamp. Whether or not this implies that Vorbis has no patent risk is a whole other matter!
Sometimes you could even get the impression that Xiph.org is not interested in Vorbis development/tuning at all, considering that Garf's excellent tuning haven't yet been merged into the main source tree.
There can be valid reasons for that, notably it might be better to just fix things in a more general or through way. The problem is just that Vorbis development is...slow or nonexistant.
I am also wondering about intensity stereo, used in both Vorbis and Speex.
Those probably do not apply to Vorbis as they all talk about using stereo coding in scalefactor bands. Patent numbers: EP0910927 and EP0910928.
About speex: looks like a CELP codec to me, I don't know if that is patented.
ACELP is patented, not CELP. Also, the intensity stereo support in Speex (can't comment on Vorbis) is not even divided in frequency bands so I don't see how it's going to be a problem. (even if it were, it's easy to strip from a file and it has never been intended to produce really good stereo)
Nobody from Vorbis has ever wanted to back up the patent-free moniker with any real facts, nobody wants to give any guarantees.
Vorbis has always used 'patents' as an argument against MPC, but the reality is that the situation with Vorbis is no different than the one of MPC. If you're going to throw mud, expect to receive some too.
Show something tangible to support the claims, not again hollow things we are supposed to believe, just as we were supposed to believe bitrate peeling would be a major feature advantage of Vorbis, like, 4 years ago already?
...
Difference is, Linux vendors such as HP are idemnifying their clients from SCO's claims. Is Xiph.org going to do the same?
I suggest you call Thompson/FhG and ask them if they can guarantee (with indemnification) that if you license their MP3 patents, you won't get sued by someone else owning (previously unknown) patents on MP3. They won't. Nor will anyone else. Want to know why? Because the whole patent system is just a big lottery. There are probably patents out there covering "use of the multiplication in multimedia software" or anything stupid like that that probably wouldn't hold, even in US courts.
So what does patent-free mean? It means that 1) we did not patent that piece of software and 2) we have done a reasonnable check (similar to what FhG and others also have to do) that there are no 3rd parties that own patents on the software. That's unfortunately about the best that can be done about patents right now, so it comes down to "patent-free" unless proven otherwise.
I think the matter about Vorbis and patents, and claims made about the situation is rather simple.
1. If you can't disclose the information found by the patent search, showing that there are no patents, then it is utterly useless to say that Vorbis is "patent free" in expectation of people accepting it. There is no way for a third party to verify this without doing their own work entirely (which is impractical). One cannot even begin to make assumptions about the legality of Vorbis without this information either, so basically when Vorbis is being marketed as a superior solution on the merits of "patent free" and "legality," you are simply asking us to make a leap of faith.
2. If we are going to take an "innocent until proven guilty" approach (and by the way, this approach is not some sort of a priori self-given fact or fundamental method of the universe, it's simply a common approach used by most people -- this does not mean that it is correct), then how can Vorbis presume to be superior to other codecs on the front of legality when these other codecs are just as "innocent"?
MPC for example is a great codec which is still "innocent" and has not been proven "guilty," yet Vorbis claims to somehow be better in that the patent situation is clear and that it is legal. The comments in this thread show that this is far from the case. So, fundamentally, Vorbis is not better than other codecs which have also not been "proven guilty," using this line of reasoning.
Side Note: Whether or not a conviction is made in a court of law is irrelevant to the truth of falsity of something. All a court says is whether someone or something is in the right or wrong for being or doing something, and if and how recompense should be provided. Hence, Vorbis may or may not actually be using patented technology now (which would by definition imply patent infringement unless there was either a payment for the technology or a release to use the technology freely) and this is so whether or not it has actually been tested in a court.
Why does this matter? For one, it's certainly an important consideration to take into account if one is attempting to make predictions about the future. If a company is worried about whether or not they will be sued for using Vorbis, then whether or not Vorbis is using patented technology now is very significant, even if it has not been tested in a court of law.
3. If the single biggest selling point of Vorbis is that it is patent free, yet no information is disclosed publically about studies on this and the developers and the company will make no guarentees to such, it would seem to me that somehow there is a very fundamental flaw in the entire marketing approach here.
It would appear that most very staunch supporters of Vorbis seem to accept for a fact this aspect of Vorbis as being true, yet, once again, it seems that from the case of this thread that this situation is anything but clear and that in no way have this aspect been proven.
The solution is simple, though disappointing for many: Simply stop claiming that Vorbis is patent free as a matter of fact, or provide some sort of grounds for this and take the entire notion of it as being serious to those who are supposed to believe it.
I suggest you call Thompson/FhG and ask them if they can guarantee (with indemnification) that if you license their MP3 patents, you won't get sued by someone else owning (previously unknown) patents on MP3. They won't. Nor will anyone else. Want to know why? Because the whole patent system is just a big lottery. There are probably patents out there covering "use of the multiplication in multimedia software" or anything stupid like that that probably wouldn't hold, even in US courts.
So what does patent-free mean? It means that 1) we did not patent that piece of software and 2) we have done a reasonnable check (similar to what FhG and others also have to do) that there are no 3rd parties that own patents on the software. That's unfortunately about the best that can be done about patents right now, so it comes down to "patent-free" unless proven otherwise.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=137256 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=8&t=13531&hl=&view=findpost&p=137256)
So what does patent-free mean? It means that 1) we did not patent that piece of software and 2) we have done a reasonnable check (similar to what FhG and others also have to do) that there are no 3rd parties that own patents on the software. That's unfortunately about the best that can be done about patents right now, so it comes down to "patent-free" unless proven otherwise.
But the problem, as has been repeated many times in this thread, is how can we be sure of this patent search? Not in whether or not it was actually thorough enough, but more fundamentally, that it even exists in any meaningful sense.
So far, nobody will disclose any information about it other than to say that it does indeed exist. How is this any more useful than simply saying nothing at all, especially when there is no real reputation here to trust or any promises of compensation, etc. ?
Considering the following, is it actually reasonable for us to simply accept Vorbis as being patent free?
1. A patent search which you won't give us any details of.
2. A lack of indemnification.
3. A lack of conditions which would at least imply the correctness of the search (who exactly did the search, what did they search for, etc.. even if we can't have the results).
4. Statements from others (Fhg) likely to be knowledgeable on the matter that indeed there may be patent infringement.
I could go on...
It seems a little absurd, doesn't it? It kind of appears to me that Vorbis wants to play the game (make statements of "matter of fact" in the patent/licensing arena), yet isn't willing to play by the existing rules (disclosure of information on patent searches, etc. which form the basis of their statements).
Quite simply, it doesn't seem to work to well.
This is a question that's bothered me. If Vorbis is patent-free, then what would prevent someone else from filing for a patent on Vorbis technology and suing the pants off of Xiph?
Another question I have is this: It seems that getting a patent for a piece of technology is not that difficult (relative to say... developing it). Wouldn't Xiph holding a patent on Vorbis technology put them in a stronger position lawsuit-wise to defend themselves?
This is a question that's bothered me. If Vorbis is patent-free, then what would prevent someone else from filing for a patent on Vorbis technology and suing the pants off of Xiph?
Prior art.
MPC for example is a great codec which is still "innocent" and has not been proven "guilty,"
So you're saying MPC is patent free? Great. Prove it, please
MPC for example is a great codec which is still "innocent" and has not been proven "guilty,"
So you're saying MPC is patent free? Great. Prove it, please
You first say Vorbis is patent free because nobody proved it isn't, which leads to Dibrom saying that this also goes for MPC. He didn't say MPC *is* patent free, only that MPC is patent free by Vorbis' standards. So the question remains: what security does Vorbis offer that e.g. MPC doesn't?
MPC for example is a great codec which is still "innocent" and has not been proven "guilty,"
So you're saying MPC is patent free? Great. Prove it, please
Err. You completely missed the entire point of my posts.
No, you see, I'm
not saying this. Not at all. I'm not even assuming it. In fact, I don't actually care whether it is or not in this conext; that factor is completely beyond consideration.
I'm saying that if you're basing the "patent free" condition on "innocent until proven guilty," then Vorbis is no more "patent free" than any other alternative which is still "not proven guilty." MPC is one of these.
Hence, Vorbis is not different from MPC in this sense, and thus cannot be better.
Nowhere did I say that MPC is patent free, I'm simply using your method to show why there is no difference and can be no superiority in that sense.
MPC for example is a great codec which is still "innocent" and has not been proven "guilty,"
So you're saying MPC is patent free? Great. Prove it, please
You first say Vorbis is patent free because nobody proved it isn't, which leads to Dibrom saying that this also goes for MPC. He didn't say MPC *is* patent free, only that MPC is patent free by Vorbis' standards. So the question remains: what security does Vorbis offer that e.g. MPC doesn't?
Exactly
>Wouldn't Xiph holding a patent on Vorbis technology put them in a stronger position lawsuit-wise to defend themselves?
Only if they patented some technology that the company sueing vorbis infringes upon, then you get a patent swap - happens all the time, someone tries to sue IBM, they will say lets see what we can sue you on...
So you're saying MPC is patent free?
What MPC has going for it is it is small fry with no real identifiable company behind it.
edit: removed double quote
But the problem, as has been repeated many times in this thread, is how can we be sure of this patent search? Not in whether or not it was actually thorough enough, but more fundamentally, that it even exists in any meaningful sense.
I imagine that you have asked FhG, MS and Real for prof that their codec didn't include any other 3rd party license, right?
So far, nobody will disclose any information about it other than to say that it does indeed exist. How is this any more useful than simply saying nothing at all, especially when there is no real reputation here to trust or any promises of compensation, etc. ?
Can we just forget about 100% bulletproof proofs? There ain't no such thing, either for codecs like Speex and Vorbis or for 3rd party claims in MP3/WMA/Real. MS just got sued over plugins in IE. Look at the GIF/JPEG/RAMBUS fiascos, ...
Considering the following, is it actually reasonable for us to simply accept Vorbis as being patent free?
1. A patent search which you won't give us any details of.
2. A lack of indemnification.
3. A lack of conditions which would at least imply the correctness of the search (who exactly did the search, what did they search for, etc.. even if we can't have the results).
4. Statements from others (Fhg) likely to be knowledgeable on the matter that indeed there may be patent infringement.
I guess it all depends on the meaning you give to patent-free. The only one that makes sense is to say that it means: "we didn't patent it and we did our best to make sure there aren't other patents".
As for 4), does it mean that if I claim I own a patent on MP3, you'll stop using it?
Now regarding patent searches, eventhough it's a good thing, it doesn't guarantee as much as you'd think (this once again applies to both free and proprietary codecs). First, there are probably patents on digital computers and stupidities like that. Of course, there's prior art, but only a court can reverse the patent. That alone would mean that all software is patented. There are lots of stupid patents like that that would have to go before a judge to be (most likely) turned down. That's why, in the end, only a judge can say patent-free or not. Even then, there's submarine patents. Some have perfected the art of holding patents "under water" for *decades*, so in theory, even MP3 is not clear from those.
So I hope you understand more clearly what we mean when we say "patent-free".
I don't have/know the actual patent number, but the description of the patent is pretty clear, so it shoudn't be too hard to verify.
US5357594 (Not from FhG, but one of the Ahead AAC developers was questioning this specifically)
I had a look at that patent and while IANAL, it looks pretty phony to me. What they're claiming is basically a patent on overlap-and-add and transform codecs in general. However, both were invented long before 1993. Their claims are so broad, some would cover anything from MP3 to JPEG, MPEG and the rest. It's one of those "a digital device that can programmed to perform different tasks" patents. The only specific claims are about how to create the window and they don't really fit with the way the Vorbis window is made.
I don't have/know the actual patent number, but the description of the patent is pretty clear, so it shoudn't be too hard to verify.
US5357594 (Not from FhG, but one of the Ahead AAC developers was questioning this specifically)
I had a look at that patent and while IANAL, it looks pretty phony to me. What they're claiming is basically a patent on overlap-and-add and transform codecs in general. However, both were invented long before 1993. Their claims are so broad, some would cover anything from MP3 to JPEG, MPEG and the rest. It's one of those "a digital device that can programmed to perform different tasks" patents. The only specific claims are about how to create the window and they don't really fit with the way the Vorbis window is made.
Umm, so did you check US5357594 or US5214742? The interesting/correct patent meant was mainly the US5214742.
Can we just forget about 100% bulletproof proofs? There ain't no such thing, either for codecs like Speex and Vorbis or for 3rd party claims in MP3/WMA/Real. MS just got sued over plugins in IE. Look at the GIF/JPEG/RAMBUS fiascos, ...
I guess it all depends on the meaning you give to patent-free. The only one that makes sense is to say that it means: "we didn't patent it and we did our best to make sure there aren't other patents".
As for 4), does it mean that if I claim I own a patent on MP3, you'll stop using it?
Now regarding patent searches, eventhough it's a good thing, it doesn't guarantee as much as you'd think (this once again applies to both free and proprietary codecs). First, there are probably patents on digital computers and stupidities like that. Of course, there's prior art, but only a court can reverse the patent. That alone would mean that all software is patented. There are lots of stupid patents like that that would have to go before a judge to be (most likely) turned down. That's why, in the end, only a judge can say patent-free or not. Even then, there's submarine patents. Some have perfected the art of holding patents "under water" for *decades*, so in theory, even MP3 is not clear from those.
So I hope you understand more clearly what we mean when we say "patent-free".
even as a dissapointed ex vorbis user, i must totally agree with jmvalin ... no one can ever claim that a program is patents free ... this is because the very nature of the patent process ... i mean, look at the linux case, and many, many others ... (and no, hp indemnifying users does not counts) ... it is obvius that the patents system is overhelmed and very ineficient ... what matters to me most, is when, if ever, vorbis would be a viable coded ...
PS1: garf, why are you so harsh on vorbis, being a "vorbis developer"?
PS2: i'm still re-ripping my collection of CDs (used to be vorbis) to "mp3 aps" to use on my SlimX
PS1: garf, why are you so harsh on vorbis, being a "vorbis developer"?
Delusion?
Umm, so did you check US5357594 or US5214742? The interesting/correct patent meant was mainly the US5214742.
Just looked at that one. I think Vorbis is probably OK because of the "as a function of signal amplitude changes" at the end of claim 1. I think Vorbis chooses the length of the window better than that. Otherwise, it would be easy to change the encoder to choose the window differently without much problem.
I imagine that you have asked FhG, MS and Real for prof that their codec didn't include any other 3rd party license, right?
No, and that's wholly irrelevant to my point. I'm not aiming my discussion here at the patent situation regarding Vorbis, vs the patent situation regarding other codecs
per se. Rather I'm trying to examine the statement: "Vorbis is patent-free," in so far as what it means, the reasoning behind it, whether or not it is true or false, and how we can test it's condition.
Whether or not MS or Real or Fhg use patented technology doesn't relate to that.
Xiph is saying that Vorbis is patent-free, yet there appear to be some flaws in how exactly that conclusion was reached (peering in from the outside at least, which in this context is all that matters), and there appears to be a lack of evidence which would allow a third party to verify this.
So far, nobody will disclose any information about it other than to say that it does indeed exist. How is this any more useful than simply saying nothing at all, especially when there is no real reputation here to trust or any promises of compensation, etc. ?
Can we just forget about 100% bulletproof proofs? There ain't no such thing, either for codecs like Speex and Vorbis or for 3rd party claims in MP3/WMA/Real. MS just got sued over plugins in IE. Look at the GIF/JPEG/RAMBUS fiascos, ...
Sure. We can just use "reasonable likelyhood" instead, if you'd prefer that.
As I tried to examine earlier though, there appears to be no way for one to reason that it is likely that Vorbis is patent free other than:
1. Xiph says so (and simply that).
2. AOL used Vorbis in Winamp (but did not say anything about patents).
3. Xiph has not been sued yet.
Considering the significance of the statement that is being made (that Vorbis is "patent free"), and what this means to most companies (significant monetary value or rather, their livelihood), the premises being used to support this conclusion are somewhat flimsy, especially if a few other factors are considered:
1. Xiph refuses to disclose patent search information.
2. Xiph refuses to give indemnification.
3. There would be extremely little for a company suing them to gain even if they were infringing.
Considering the following, is it actually reasonable for us to simply accept Vorbis as being patent free?
1. A patent search which you won't give us any details of.
2. A lack of indemnification.
3. A lack of conditions which would at least imply the correctness of the search (who exactly did the search, what did they search for, etc.. even if we can't have the results).
4. Statements from others (Fhg) likely to be knowledgeable on the matter that indeed there may be patent infringement.
I guess it all depends on the meaning you give to patent-free. The only one that makes sense is to say that it means: "we didn't patent it and we did our best to make sure there aren't other patents".
Then why do you say: "Vorbis is 'patent-free'", vs. "Vorbis likely uses unpatented technology."
I'll take a guess and assume because the former is more significant than the latter, and that most companies would not be willing to base their production around a technology with such a lack of assurance in security.
However you look at it though, by asserting that Vorbis is patent-free without actually being sure is bending the truth. How important this is could be arguable, but I'm willing to bet that most of the people who have taken this statement for granted are not even aware of the relative uncertainty of it.
Furthermore, it seems absurd to make assumptions about the superiority of Vorbis over other alternatives based on something which you don't even know to be a definite attribute of Vorbis in the first place, nor which you can reasonably demonstrate (since we don't like absolutes here).
As for 4), does it mean that if I claim I own a patent on MP3, you'll stop using it?
No. First of all, I wasn't relating in that statement any sort of judgement as to what course of action would be appropriate. The statement was only made to be used as a foundation for reasoning as to whether or not it is likely that Vorbis uses patented technology or not.
As for the significance of #4, Fhg has been shown to work within the realm of patents in a known and given manner, and the status of the patents on their technology is openly disclosed, even if it may be incomplete or not entirely accurate.
Given this, it would be reasonable to assume that their statements on the status of something being patented would, at the very least and if nothing else, hold more weight than the pure lack of evidence
whatsoever (that the patent search information has not been disclosed).
Now regarding patent searches, eventhough it's a good thing, it doesn't guarantee as much as you'd think (this once again applies to both free and proprietary codecs). First, there are probably patents on digital computers and stupidities like that. Of course, there's prior art, but only a court can reverse the patent. That alone would mean that all software is patented. There are lots of stupid patents like that that would have to go before a judge to be (most likely) turned down. That's why, in the end, only a judge can say patent-free or not. Even then, there's submarine patents. Some have perfected the art of holding patents "under water" for *decades*, so in theory, even MP3 is not clear from those.
I see a few more problems here:
If you dismiss or designify the importance of patent searches and the disclosure of this information, then how is being "patent free" (a state in which all patents are known, or disclosed, not to apply) important any longer?
This selling point no longer becomes very important because you admit that it is rather arbitrary, yet the problem is that this is the sole reason many people use to Vorbis in the first place.
Secondly, if you use the premise that only a Judge or court of law can determine whether something is "patent free" or not, then how can you rightly expect people to simply accept that something is patent free on word alone?
It may be the case that a patent search would not be legally significant in absolute sense, but at the very least it is closer to the legal system than nothing at all (and especially if we don't like absolutes, this is definitely an improvement).
So I hope you understand more clearly what we mean when we say "patent-free".
I do, I think, though I don't see how it makes sense or how the conclusions that are being drawn from that "matter of fact" make sense either.
I imagine that you have asked FhG, MS and Real for prof that their codec didn't include any other 3rd party license, right?
No, and that's wholly irrelevant to my point. I'm not aiming my discussion here at the patent situation regarding Vorbis, vs the patent situation regarding other codecs per se. Rather I'm trying to examine the statement: "Vorbis is patent-free," in so far as what it means, the reasoning behind it, whether or not it is true or false, and how we can test it's condition.
Whether or not MS or Real or Fhg use patented technology doesn't relate to that.
What I meant is that if you were to buy boxed software from Real, there would likely be something along the lines of "this product is protected under patents #so and so". Do you see anything saying "We don't think there are other patents but we don't think so"? This is just sort of implied by the fact that the patent situation is such that you never really know for sure. Now, if you take Vorbis (or Speex), the logical adaptation of "this product is protected under patents #so and so" becomes "this product is not protected by patent" or "this is patent-free". That exactly what is meant by patent-free.
However you look at it though, by asserting that Vorbis is patent-free without actually being sure is bending the truth. How important this is could be arguable, but I'm willing to bet that most of the people who have taken this statement for granted are not even aware of the relative uncertainty of it.
Your definition of patent-free seems to imply 100% certainty. There is no such thing when it comes to patents. That's why we use patent-free to mean something which actually makes sense.
Furthermore, it seems absurd to make assumptions about the superiority of Vorbis over other alternatives based on something which you don't even know to be a definite attribute of Vorbis in the first place, nor which you can reasonably demonstrate (since we don't like absolutes here).
You need to cross the lake and there are two boats. The first one says "hole-free hull" and by looking at it, you see no hole, but of course you can never be sure. The second boat says "there are 25 holes in the hull" and you can find a detailed description of each one. Which boat will you take.
If you dismiss or designify the importance of patent searches and the disclosure of this information, then how is being "patent free" (a state in which all patents are known, or disclosed, not to apply) important any longer?
I do believe they are useful if you can afford them. However, by your definition of patent-free, it wouldn't help in any way because it doesn't provide a 100% guarantee.
So I hope you understand more clearly what we mean when we say "patent-free".
If I understand you correctly, the only thing that can prove Ogg Vorbis to be patent free is a court of law. Ironically, this won't prove anything if Xiph wins; it's one patent down, and many to go. There are so many patents world wide, that for all practical concerns, they're infinite. So claiming that Ogg Vorbis is patent free is in fact an impossible claim.
Perhaps what you mean is that it is unpatented* and free**?
* You have not seen any evidence to the contrary, and have not patented it yourself.
** In every possible sense of the word. FSF or salesman...
The answer is simple: Yes. An accused person is innocent until proven guilty. A technology is patent free until proven to be infringing in a court of law. Since Vorbis has not been proven to be infringing on any patents (in fact, it has as yet not even been credibly accused of doing so), it is justified to say it's patent free.
I agree this is legally true (IANAL) and the whole point of this discussion is that Xiph claims its codecs to be patent free and other codecs (Musepack) don't. If someone claims that Xiph technologies have any patents then they have to prove it, not just say it. If they prove it, Xiph will probably die, I don't know (doesn't matter for the discussion, I think). If this doesn't happen, then Xiph can make "patent-free" claims.
btw: Didn't Buschmann say that Musepack infringed (or could be infringing) some patents? At least the early encoders?
cya
btw: Didn't Buschmann say that Musepack infringed (or could be infringing) some patents? At least the early encoders?
He guessed it was infriging MP2 patents owned by Philips. But he's a programmer, not a lawyer, so you can't expect that he has done a patent search on Musepack algorithms.
I think he mostly said that to warn people. "I'm not sure, but there MIGHT be patents owned by Philips, so be careful"
So I hope you understand more clearly what we mean when we say "patent-free".
If I understand you correctly, the only thing that can prove Ogg Vorbis to be patent free is a court of law. Ironically, this won't prove anything if Xiph wins; it's one patent down, and many to go. There are so many patents world wide, that for all practical concerns, they're infinite. So claiming that Ogg Vorbis is patent free is in fact an impossible claim.
What I meant is that only a court can say it's not patent-free. Of course, if one finds a patent that is obviously infringed, it might also qualify. Otherwise, patent-free and unpatented mean roughly the same thing to me, no?
I imagine that you have asked FhG, MS and Real for prof that their codec didn't include any other 3rd party license, right?
No, and that's wholly irrelevant to my point. I'm not aiming my discussion here at the patent situation regarding Vorbis, vs the patent situation regarding other codecs per se. Rather I'm trying to examine the statement: "Vorbis is patent-free," in so far as what it means, the reasoning behind it, whether or not it is true or false, and how we can test it's condition.
Whether or not MS or Real or Fhg use patented technology doesn't relate to that.
Do you see anything saying "We don't think there are other patents but we don't think so"? This is just sort of implied by the fact that the patent situation is such that you never really know for sure.
I assume you meant to say:
"There may be other patents but we don't think so."
If that's what you meant to say, then, no, I don't think you would usually see that. However, the fact that patent information is disclosed
at all, is more significant than not disclosing this information.
At the very least it provides some place to start in attempting to make a judgement as to whether or not it is secure to use the technology, in contrast to a vacuous uncertainty and an empty assurance.
Now, if you take Vorbis (or Speex), the logical adaptation of "this product is protected under patents #so and so" becomes "this product is not protected by patent" or "this is patent-free". That exactly what is meant by patent-free.
Right, I understand what "patent free" means. The problem is that you have demonstrated that "patent free" is the actual condition that exists. And as for the absolute or not thing, you haven't even demonstrated the reasonable likelyhood that it is "patent free" (whether this is an absolute condition in this sense is not as important as the likelyhood that it
could be of this condition). See the premises listed in my previous posts about this.
However you look at it though, by asserting that Vorbis is patent-free without actually being sure is bending the truth. How important this is could be arguable, but I'm willing to bet that most of the people who have taken this statement for granted are not even aware of the relative uncertainty of it.
Your definition of patent-free seems to imply 100% certainty. There is no such thing when it comes to patents. That's why we use patent-free to mean something which actually makes sense.
I allowed flexibility in the definition. "Patent free" may not be an absolute thing, but whether it is or not, to say that something is "patent free," one would still need some sort of reasonable evidence to draw that conclusion, at least if we are going to presume that this non-aboluste condition is significant in any sense (the looser we allow the definition to be, the less significant being of the condition becomes, and this goes right back again to causing problems for Vorbis, if Vorbis is important
by virtue of being "patent free"). Again, see my previous posts as for why this doesn't seem to be so cut and dry.
Furthermore, it seems absurd to make assumptions about the superiority of Vorbis over other alternatives based on something which you don't even know to be a definite attribute of Vorbis in the first place, nor which you can reasonably demonstrate (since we don't like absolutes here).
You need to cross the lake and there are two boats. The first one says "hole-free hull" and by looking at it, you see no hole, but of course you can never be sure. The second boat says "there are 25 holes in the hull" and you can find a detailed description of each one. Which boat will you take.
This analogy is flawed because you assume the data you are looking for is negative towards your purpose. Crossing a lake in a boat with holes in it does not make sense obviously because it already gives something negative to your goal. However, if holes are equated to patents, the reverse is true in the case of companies licensing technologies. Patent certainty (or the likelihood if you prever) is definitely positive and not negative to the goal of security. The more that you know your technology is related to something else, the less chance that you will find a suprise. In this sense, instead of the data being negative, it is positive. "The more the better". The more patents that you are aware of as existing (or the more that you are aware, with reason, that no existing patents apply, if you prefer), and which are licensed, the less chance that a patent will be found which will cause you harm.
If you want to use a similar analogy, you could think of the holes as patents, and licensing them as patching the holes. The more holes you are aware of and that have been patched, when given the entirety of the boat, the less likely that you will find more, especially since there is only a finite space which the boat can occupy (or in this case, a finite base of technology which is used which could be patented).
If you dismiss or designify the importance of patent searches and the disclosure of this information, then how is being "patent free" (a state in which all patents are known, or disclosed, not to apply) important any longer?
I do believe they are useful if you can afford them.
This makes no sense. First you devalue patent searches saying that decisions about patents by the legal system are mostly arbitrary. Then you come back and say that they are important.
However, by your definition of patent-free, it wouldn't help in any way because it doesn't provide a 100% guarantee.
My definition doesn't have to be absolute, the arguments work just as well even if it not. You still need some measure of significance, and you don't seem to have that it would seem, at least not externally or in that way that you seem to be claiming.
You need to cross the lake and there are two boats. The first one says "hole-free hull" and by looking at it, you see no hole, but of course you can never be sure. The second boat says "there are 25 holes in the hull" and you can find a detailed description of each one. Which boat will you take.
Let me try to drag your analogy. Actually, it works very well for defending patented algorithms, and not the other way around.
If I were to choose, I would take the boat with the well documented holes. Because then, I can fix them all (or "pay the license fees") before setting sail.
If I take the boat that claims to be without any holes, I might very well find a hole (or "be sued over patent licensing") in the middle of my lake crossing. And then I'm screwed, my boat will sink (or "my company will be dragged to court").
If that's what you meant to say, then, no, I don't think you would usually see that. However, the fact that patent information is disclosed at all, is more significant than not disclosing this information.
At the very least it provides some place to start in attempting to make a judgement as to whether or not it is secure to use the technology, in contrast to a vacuous uncertainty and an empty assurance.
Actually, what these statements say is "we know that this product is covered by these patents" (usually because the patents are owned by the company). We say exactly the same except that the "these patents" is the null set.
Right, I understand what "patent free" means. The problem is that you have demonstrated that "patent free" is the actual condition that exists. And as for the absolute or not thing, you haven't even demonstrated the reasonable likelyhood that it is "patent free" (whether this is an absolute condition in this sense is not as important as the likelyhood that it could be of this condition). See the premises listed in my previous posts about this.
So
you're the only one that gets to define what the "reasonable likelyhood" threshold is, right?
If you want to use a similar analogy, you could think of the holes as patents, and licensing them as patching the holes. The more holes you are aware of and that have been patched, when given the entirety of the boat, the less likely that you will find more, especially since there is only a finite space which the boat can occupy (or in this case, a finite base of technology which is used which could be patented).
You mean that a boat with 10 patches and no apparent hole is safer than a boat with 0 patch and no apparent patch?
I do believe they are useful if you can afford them.
This makes no sense. First you devalue patent searches saying that decisions about patents by the legal system are mostly arbitrary. Then you come back and say that they are important.
I devalued patent searches as a way to get 100% certainty. I sure would like to get one for Speex "just to be sure", eventhough I'm pretty confident I evaded the patents (by using older technology in my case).
You mean that a boat with 10 patches and no apparent hole is safer than a boat with 0 patch and no apparent patch?
You just changed your analogy. Formerly, you didn't say absolutely nothing about patches. You just said one boat had well documented holes, and the other seemed to have none, but you coudln't get any guarantee.
BTW, patches make even less sense comparing to the whole patent issue.
The discussiong goes boring with all these analogies.. Why not just stick to the actual issue instead of arguing about analogies..
This is pretty interesting what jmvalin said:
Umm, so did you check US5357594 or US5214742? The interesting/correct patent meant was mainly the US5214742.
Just looked at that one. I think Vorbis is probably OK because of the "as a function of signal amplitude changes" at the end of claim 1. I think Vorbis chooses the length of the window better than that. Otherwise, it would be easy to change the encoder to choose the window differently without much problem.
Hopefully some knowledgeable people can elaborate this further..
You mean that a boat with 10 patches and no apparent hole is safer than a boat with 0 patch and no apparent patch?
You just changed your analogy. Formerly, you didn't say absolutely nothing about patches. You just said one boat had well documented holes, and the other seemed to have none, but you coudln't get any guarantee.
BTW, patches make even less sense comparing to the whole patent issue.
I was answering to Dibrom's modified analogy. Anyway, the analogy was there to illustrate my point, but since it's not an "formal" argument, it's not worth depating. So case closed.
If that's what you meant to say, then, no, I don't think you would usually see that. However, the fact that patent information is disclosed at all, is more significant than not disclosing this information.
At the very least it provides some place to start in attempting to make a judgement as to whether or not it is secure to use the technology, in contrast to a vacuous uncertainty and an empty assurance.
Actually, what these statements say is "we know that this product is covered by these patents" (usually because the patents are owned by the company). We say exactly the same except that the "these patents" is the null set.
You're explaining "patent free" again when there is no need to. As I said in the last post, I understand what you are meaning, however, what is important is
how you came to this conclusion.
Where is the information for which you based your conclusion that Vorbis is "patent free" upon? Can we see this? It seems that the answer is "no" judging the quotes from Jack earlier. If we can't see this, why not?
Again, I don't need an explaination of what "patent free"
is, rather what we're looking for is
how do we know Vorbis is "patent free," especially in light of the circumstances.
Right, I understand what "patent free" means. The problem is that you have demonstrated that "patent free" is the actual condition that exists. And as for the absolute or not thing, you haven't even demonstrated the reasonable likelyhood that it is "patent free" (whether this is an absolute condition in this sense is not as important as the likelyhood that it could be of this condition). See the premises listed in my previous posts about this.
So you're the only one that gets to define what the "reasonable likelyhood" threshold is, right?
No. This is certainly open to interpretation. However, if we are going to be using an existing system (patent system), it would make sense to adopt it's common conventions.
We need a patent search or some sort of technical information as to why Vorbis is "patent free." Anyone can then draw a conclusion as to how likely it is that this is significantly so or not, but we at least need some starting point.
Whether or not the Xiph guys have this, most common people on the outside, especially those who would be lead to believe that Vorbis is "patent free," most certainly do not.
If you want to use a similar analogy, you could think of the holes as patents, and licensing them as patching the holes. The more holes you are aware of and that have been patched, when given the entirety of the boat, the less likely that you will find more, especially since there is only a finite space which the boat can occupy (or in this case, a finite base of technology which is used which could be patented).
You mean that a boat with 10 patches and no apparent hole is safer than a boat with 0 patch and no apparent patch?
You misunderstand. It would be safer to choose a boat with 10 patches and no apparent hole, for which you can verify and see for yourself, and which has a life jacket (indemnification) than a boat which someone has told you about but which will not show you a condition report for (expert analysis of the possibility of patents; the source code being available alone doesn't cut it since most people would be unable to draw conclusions about it, and most companies wouldn't bother to check it), which someone else has said may be severely damaged (Fhg), and further for which you are given no guarentees of.
And even if you wanted to consider a company which is interested in a technology with is subject to a lack of patents, the same could be held; the holes are the possibility of a patentable technology: if you have them and they are patched, then it is technology which you are aware of which could patented, which either 1) is patented and you have licensed it, or 2) is not patented and would not be a risk (such as the supposed case of Vorbis); if you have them and they are not patched, then that represents unmitigated risk.
The discussiong goes boring with all these analogies.. Why not just stick to the actual issue instead of arguing about analogies..
I would tend to agree, though it seems that "patent free" keeps needing constant redefinition, and that we can't actually get to whether Vorbis is "patent free" or not (regardless of definition), even though it's been asked for countless times in this thread.
This is how I see this discussion:
1. - Monty came and said "Hey, I made a patent free codec"
2. - A patent search is claimed to have been done, but nobody gets any proof of it.
3. - Neverthless, people started spreading the word, even though they didn't veryify the facts first.
4. - Some years later, HA members bring the issue "Hey, what were they saying about no patents? Is it really true? Did they offer any documents attempting to prove it back then?"
5. - Vorbis advocates get pissed because "patent free" had mostly became vox populi, something you take for granted and ask no questions about. So, "what's up with these people, questioning after all these years"?
You're explaining "patent free" again when there is no need to. As I said in the last post, I understand what you are meaning, however, what is important is how you came to this conclusion.
Where is the information for which you based your conclusion that Vorbis is "patent free" upon? Can we see this? It seems that the answer is "no" judging the quotes from Jack earlier. If we can't see this, why not?
Again, I don't need an explaination of what "patent free" is, rather what we're looking for is how do we know Vorbis is "patent free," especially in light of the circumstances.
OK, I'll talk about Speex here because that's what I know best (of course), but the same would apply for Vorbis. When writing Speex I made sure I avoided the known patents, I used older techniques and I searched the USPTO database. I can't prove that I did that, you'll have to take my word for it. I still think this has much more value than a patent search (though a search could add to the "certainty") and I consider this enough to say patent-free. I'm not sure what other proofs you want.
Seriously, it took years for the JPEG patent to surface and even now, it's not clear if the patent is really valid. What more do you want?? The patent system is a big lottery, regardless of whether you're dealing with free or proprietary software. I'm sorry, but right now, there isn't much more we can do.
This is how I see this discussion:
1. - Monty came and said "Hey, I made a patent free codec"
Hehheh.. Well I think that's a bit too much simplified. After all Monty has definitely used very considerable amount of time and effort (as a sole employee of Xiph) to build the codec and all things around it, so gotta give lots of credit for doing that..
But as said, it would be good for everybody if the patent issues were cleared somewhat better than what has been done so far...
PS1: garf, why are you so harsh on vorbis, being a "vorbis developer"?
Well, considering how much time Garf spent on tuning in the Vorbis platform, its perfectly understandable that he's very concerned about being a developer "on thin ice". Certainty is a big plus for developers and whether all the work they poured in was worth it.
If Xiph.org can be crystal clear on patenting issues and it's enough to reassure everyone that Vorbis isn't infringing patents and that it won't be sued in the future, then it would alleviate a lot of this concern and doubt so people can continue going about contributing to it. It is a lot like doctors who suddenly find their medical indemnity insurance has disappeared. Would they continue to work with the comfort and confidence knowing that they might get sued in the future?
Seriously, it took years for the JPEG patent to surface and even now, it's not clear if the patent is really valid. What more do you want?? The patent system is a big lottery, regardless of whether you're dealing with free or proprietary software. I'm sorry, but right now, there isn't much more we can do.
I could once again refer to one of the Ivan's previous messages (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=8&t=13531&hl=&view=findpost&p=137256), but I think we are just going circles here..
What I'd like to know is, does Xiph have any intention to bring more light to the issue or was your initial opinion/analysis about the US5214742 the only real thing what can be expected from Xiph regarding the claims and counter-claims about patents (and obviously that was only your individual opinion, not any official statement).
Obviously it's very much easier to convince masses of open source enthusiastics, but how do you plan to convince companies that Vorbis actually is patent free?
The "patent issue" is scheduled to be discussed at the Xiph.org Monthly Meeting for October.
See http://wiki.xiph.org/MonthlyMeeting (http://wiki.xiph.org/MonthlyMeeting). The meeting is open to the public.
The "patent issue" is scheduled to be discussed at the Xiph.org Monthly Meeting for October.
See http://wiki.xiph.org/MonthlyMeeting (http://wiki.xiph.org/MonthlyMeeting). The meeting is open to the public.
Very nice. Thank you for the information!
It seems to me that the problem some people have with Ogg Vorbis claiming to be patent free is that there is no absolute way to prove it (regardless of the research performed). In this regard, Ogg Vorbis is really no different than any other codec available but other codecs also don't go around proclaiming themselves to be patent free.
I'd like to add (if I may ) my interpretation of 'patent-free', derived from the FAQs from vorbis.com.
From http://www.vorbis.com/faq.psp (http://www.vorbis.com/faq.psp)
Ogg Vorbis is a new audio compression format. It is roughly comparable to other formats used to store and play digital music, such as MP3, VQF, AAC, and other digital audio formats. It is different from these other formats because it is completely free, open, and unpatented.
It seems that this means that Xiph.org is not patenting Ogg Vorbis, thus there will be no royalties or licensing from Xiph.org if someone or company wanted to use Ogg Vorbis.
Ogg Vorbis has been designed to completely replace all proprietary, patented audio formats.
Using the earlier quote, I assume that MP3, VQF, and AAC are patented by their respective companies while Ogg Vorbis isnt patented by Xiph.org.
If you decide to sell your music in MP3 format, you are responsible for paying Fraunhofer a percentage of each sale because you are using their patents. Vorbis is patent and license-free, so you will never need to pay anyone in order to sell, give away, or stream your own music.
Again, this refers to MP3 and its notorious licensing. The point made is that Vorbis is not patented by Xiph.org and so using it doesnt mean you have to pay licensing, like MP3.
Epic Games (the makers of Unreal Tournament, et. al.) have used Vorbis in their games ever since releasing Unreal Tournament 2003 to compress game music without having per-game license fees sap profits from every game sold. Vorbis saves developers money by avoiding patent-license fees.
Again, a big note is made to licensing and runs parallel to the licensing of MP3 players and encoders. Again, vorbis claims there are no licenses for people who want to use Vorbis since Xiph.org didnt patent the vorbis codec.
Vorbis' free encoders and high quality-to-filesize ratio can minimize bandwidth costs and eliminate compression licensing costs.
The benefits of a patent-free, license-free format outweigh the concerns of making money directly from the format.
Again, licensing costs (or rather, the lack of) is highlighted and this mostly results from vorbis having no patents and thus no need for licensing and making money from it.
So it seems that 'patent-free', as claimed by Xiph.org, doesnt actually mean the technology is guaranteed to not infringe on other patents, but more like Xiph.org did not place any of its own patents on the overall Vorbis codec itself, thus no need for licensing, as opposed to Fraunhofer and MP3. Thus the 'patent-free' claim by Xiph.org and 'patent-infringement' problem seem to be two different things altogether. Naturally patents are a concern and Xiph.org need to assure everyone that they havent infringed on anyone's patent. But I think its a bit unfair to link the 'patent-free' claim by Xiph.org as related to infringement when it was only used to highlight the "no-licensing to Xiph.org" idea.
Just my two cents.
Those probably do not apply to Vorbis as they all talk about using stereo coding in scalefactor bands. Patent numbers: EP0910927 and EP0910928.
You are right, they are related to scalefactor bands.
I am wondering how many intensity stereo patents are there, as there are also some by Philips (EP0599824)
MP3Pro and HE-AAC DO NOT have patent issues
I partially disagree. Mp3 has some patents issues (Sisvel and Philips), and unclear licensing scheme (ie not publically available) by those companies.
The answer is simple: Yes. An accused person is innocent until proven guilty. A technology is patent free until proven to be infringing in a court of law. Since Vorbis has not been proven to be infringing on any patents (in fact, it has as yet not even been credibly accused of doing so), it is justified to say it's patent free.
Unfortunately, based on this consideration Vorbis is no more patent-free than Lame (never been sued).
I have nothing against Vorbis. I think that overall it is a good potential codec (despite a few design strangeness).
But I think that Xiph would gain a lot more credibility by publically offering an explanation about the patent situation.
Of course, you can not have knowlegde on every granted patent, but at least the ones from FhG/Thomson portfolio are publically known. An explaination about at least those ones would probably be a big boost for Vorbis corporate adoption.
Am I being stupid or does:
Vorbis = Iraq
Haese & Valin = Weapons Inspectors & UN
Dibrom, JohnV etc. = America
"This doesn't exist until we can find it"
"I believe this exists and will believe so until it cannot be found"
5 pages of intellectual masturbation has lead me to a simple 2 line statement and counter argument?
Am I being stupid or does:
Vorbis = Iraq
Haese & Valin = Weapons Inspectors & UN
Dibrom, JohnV etc. = America
"This doesn't exist until we can find it"
"I believe this exists and will believe so until it cannot be found"
5 pages of intellectual masturbation has lead me to a simple 2 line statement and counter argument?
Analogies doesn't always work.
Oh, it works fairly welll. Add in that "indemnifcation" FUD that apparently has passed over from the SCO imbeciles to some developers here. Sad, really.
I've never heard Xiph selling Vorbis as "non-infringing", I've only heard them say that it's _not patented_ (aka "patent-free") which is certainly true, no?
I really hate this "indemnification" idiocy. It's going to royally fuck an entire industry if it gains foothold (I don't have to tell you which corps would love for it to do just that). Where will it end? Will compression software developers "indemnify" users against dataloss due to bugs? No? Why not? WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?! <scary music>
If you must...
Vorbis = USA & GB
"Believe us, Vorbis is patent free, we have proof but can't show it to you." = "Believe us, Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, we have proof but can't show it to you."
And then there's the critics...
Xiph.org offers nothing but its word. That just isn't enough for a company planning its future investments. Those here who question the patent situation of Ogg Vorbis aren't out to make Ogg look bad much rather to help it. It is in our own interest that companies adopt this technology, and atm this is much hindered by the unclear patent situation. You don't have to convince the community here but companies who are potentially interested in implementing Xiph.org's work into their own products. Isn't that what the Xiph people want as well? We're fighting for the same cause, actually, Xiph's cause.
I've never heard Xiph selling Vorbis as "non-infringing", I've only heard them say that it's _not patented_ (aka "patent-free") which is certainly true, no?
Certainly true?
The only "certainly true" thing is that Xiph is CLAIMING that Vorbis is "patent free", nothing more.
Hope they'll clarify this situation soon: it's in their interest.
How about if:
-1- Xiph patents Ogg Vorbis.
-2- Xiph has a contract with all "customers" stating that it will license the Vorbis codec to anyone in the world for US$0.00 per instance, for a duration of 1000 years.
-3- Connect only Xiph.org to said patent(s). If anyone ever wishes to sue over patent infringement, they would be welcome to the entire worth of Xiph as a business entity ($0.00). Somehow insulate principals of Xiph from any financial loss. (Could an "LLC" concept be applied to a non-profit org? Or is being legally "non-profit" shield enough for principals?) Now, I guess the catch is that anyone could sue for ownership of the patent(s), and then begin charging new customers for them, but this would at least not affect existing customers.
-4- Keep Vorbis open-source to maintain the ability for anyone to improve/customize/port the software and to also proliferate the "intellectual property" involved so as to complicate anyone in the future from "locking down" Vorbis (since thousands of users would have their own source, could create their own codec versions, as long as they don't "distribute" them, at least officially). This would hopefully alleviate the caveat descibed at the end of item -3-, if not prevent it in many cases (companies saying "sheesh...too much work...like trying to kill ants...too much financial risk to sue...just let them have it.")
Now, this would obviously not address the issue of some other company/entity coming along and saying, "Hey, we have a patent of part of your technology." If they do, see -3- (and -4-, as well).
No one else can patent Vorbis-specific technology, because there would be a patent holder already.
No company could ever complain that "there are license fees for Vorbis", because there wouldn't be, and there would be a contract to clearly support it, one that would not expire in any reasonable length of time.
Xiph changes their marketing claim from "Vorbis is patent-free" (or whatever it says now) to "Vorbis is free, guaranteed." Proof is the patent(s) along with the contract to all interested "buyers".
----------
So? Am I nuts/uninformed/naive?
If this were done, would it address anyone's issues with Xiph's current marketing strategy for Vorbis?
Any part of it not doable? If so, can the idea be fixed in order to work?
-1- Xiph patents Ogg Vorbis.
Well, they can't patent "Ogg Vorbis" as a whole, because Ogg Vorbis is a set of algorithms and many of these are either already patented (MDCT with window switching with overlap/add) or are not patented but in widespread use in algorithms like TwinVQ, WMA and such.
Xiph could patent some of the algorithms in Vorbis that are not prior-art, and that is purely a business decision of Xiph.
The scary part about the way this discussion is that that I'm drawing analogies of:
Vorbis -> Linux
"Prove it that Vorbis is patent free!" -> "Prove it that Linux doesn't infringe on any intellectual property!"
I don't think I want to go on with analogies to SCO and Microsoft...
I really hate this "indemnification" idiocy. It's going to royally fuck an entire industry if it gains foothold (I don't have to tell you which corps would love for it to do just that). Where will it end? Will compression software developers "indemnify" users against dataloss due to bugs? No? Why not? WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?! <scary music>
It may seem to idiocy to you, but swearing doesn't exactly prove your point. You have to remember that corporations have more to loose than hobbyists. Usually, while individuals get a Cease & Desist letter, corporations get sued. So in cost/benefit, is it better to pay some (reasonable) fees to MPEG-LA or risk paying a truckload of money in case someone sues you? If the license fees are dwarfed by your other investments, "patent-free"
And yes, if someone sells you a defective product, and you lose money due to these defects, you can sue them. IANAL but in this sense, the type of the product shouldn't matter.
<conspiracy mode>
Maybe the reason why the patent searches aren't disclosed is that they found unavoidable patent issues?
</conspiracy mode>
I'm just playing the devil's advocate - I'd love to see the legal issues of Vorbis solved
The scary part about the way this discussion is that that I'm drawing analogies of:
Vorbis -> Linux
"Prove it that Vorbis is patent free!" -> "Prove it that Linux doesn't infringe on any intellectual property!"
I don't think I want to go on with analogies to SCO and Microsoft...
This is simply not true - the fact is that Xiph Org is the organisation which uses "patent free" as a key marketing argument - and, yet, they don't show any proof that they even did a patent search (see Jack's claim that they can't disclose who did the search)
Nobody here compares Ogg to Linux - the fact is, that everbody is just concerned with some claim that doesn't have any proof or, at least, sign of good will to reduce the doubt.
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
Ok, this might be true - in fact, I would like to believe that it is true - but they were presented with some patents that might be of their concern, and I think it is fair enough to expect a reply from Xiph when these patents are in concern.
Xiph could patent some of the algorithms in Vorbis that are not prior-art, and that is purely a business decision of Xiph.
Then that, as a start anyway.
If Xiph could at least have one or two patents to point to, and then guarantee the codec as free by an associated contract, then that would substantiate claims of being "free, guaranteed". Drop "patent-free" since it stinks to so many people (and rightly so, IMO). "Free, guaranteed" would speak just as strongly to any company wanting to use or invest in the Vorbis codec in any capacity. More strongly even.
As for anyone being able, now or someday, to sue Xiph over infringement of any other patent, all that proves is that Xiph is
bound by the laws of probability when dealing with seemingly well-defined but nebulously enforcable laws. They'd be in the exact same boat as every other business (whether profit or not-for-profit) concerning the "likelihood of being sued". No way around that one, probably.
As long as they could support their marketing claim, the rest is elementary. "Patent-free" seems to be the giant cause of heatburn. I'm just trying to completely disarm that concept by proposing a solution that would replace something seemingly "not-provable" ("patent-free") with something easily provable ("free, guaranteed"). Or better yet, how about "free, guaranteed
and protected"?
I think once you have at least one patent and a contract to point to it as a viable product, then you could strengthen the hell out of the marketing statement.
"Free, guaranteed and protected
for a millenia"
Free, guaranteed and protected for a millenia
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
Free, guaranteed and protected for a millenia
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
True, indeed, but someone else will come along and stick a different name on something "remarkably" similar, or find some other way to use patent law to their advantage. It seems that patent law is one of the "holiest" concepts in legal history ("holiest" = "many holes", not "sacred").
[analogy revival]
If
patent law were a boat, it would have millions of holes, and no single person would know specifically of the existance of more than one thousand of them, nor would anyone have any idea how many holes ever actually existed.
[/analogy revival]
Hence enabling exploitation by anyone.
I'm not challenging patent law. No solution for it. No way to make yourself "un-sue-able".
The main point of my argument is for Xiph to
drop "patent-free" since it looks to be an unsupportable statement (or at least not-supported-enough-to-make-people-happy).
They should use something supportable, and only after being able to support it. Simple concept, not-so-simple solution, but one I begin trying to define in my first post.
BTW, thx for the input...my idea is just a brainstorm in great need of either refinement or debunking.Edit: Oh yeah...about MP3 being patent-free after 20 years...not much lasts over 20 years in IT anyway. MP3 will surely
not be the popular codec of choice in 2023. By then, it will be something else...likely with a patent and a cost attached to it! Unless someone...oh, I don't know, patents something to prevent anyone else from infringing and making money on it, then gives it away to the world for free, supported by a contract to that effect.
If Xiph could at least have one or two patents to point to,
For any method that Xiph is using which *could* be patented, the very fact that they are doing it publicly will establish prior art and prevent anyone else from patenting the same method. edit: Thus they will be protected in using that method
That's the theory anyway.. in practice a lot of patents seem to get granted where there is prior art that just didn't show up in the process. Those patents are ripe to be invalidated, but it costs a lot to get lawyers to do even simple things.
MP3 will surely not be the popular codec of choice in 2023.
Mp3 patents should expire sooner than 2023 (2010 or 2012 IIRC)
Edit: Oh yeah...about MP3 being patent-free after 20 years...not much lasts over 20 years in IT anyway. MP3 will surely not be the popular codec of choice in 2023. By then, it will be something else...likely with a patent and a cost attached to it! Unless someone...oh, I don't know, patents something to prevent anyone else from infringing and making money on it, then gives it away to the world for free, supported by a contract to that effect.
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
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?
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."
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.
- 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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 (http://www.xiph.org/ogg/vorbis/doc/vorbis-spec-intro.html)
Window shape decode [long windows only]
they cite:
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.
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.
- 128kbps MP3 is CD quality!
All this exageration, in fact, have been demolished.
Definitely not this one.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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"?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
So all Xiph could say is "we think we avoid patents A,B,... because this and this"
Which is off course better that the current situation.
And the point is, if they have even thought about being "patent free", then they must already have looked at this, and taken technical decisions based on ensuring that they do avoid Patents A, B,...
So we're not asking them to do any more work, or disclose something they've paid someone else to do. Just explain their technical decisions.
The cynical observer would wonder why it's not in the source code! If you're trying to comment the code, it's not unreasonable that you might say "here, we do x, y, then z (not the more obvious a, b, then c because this would infringe US pat no. x,xxx,xxx)" - otherwise you risk someone "tweaking" the code at a later stage, to use the better(?) and more obvious(?) technique, which also happens to be patented!
They must already have internal documentation for this.
Surely?
If not, they have no case for using the words "Patent Free". If "Patent Free" just means "
we haven't applied for a patent for any of this stuff", then I've got a great idea for a patent free video disc format!
If they have worked all these issues through internally, then maybe they should make their reasoning public. Unless they aren't confident of their reasoning?
Cheers,
David.
And the point is, if they have even thought about being "patent free", then they must already have looked at this, and taken technical decisions based on ensuring that they do avoid Patents A, B,...
So we're not asking them to do any more work, or disclose something they've paid someone else to do. Just explain their technical decisions.
It could start with Xiph giving us a technical explanation or their view on a certain patent. Then someone comes in and expresses a different view on this patent and how it applies to vorbis. Then Xiph will say they had lawyers looking at this but that the detailed infromation cannot be disclosed (e.g. since they paid for it).
This would not clear up the patent situation, instead we'd then have even more reason to believe they have something to hide, since there exist different opinions on their explanation.
The cynical observer would wonder why it's not in the source code! If you're trying to comment the code, it's not unreasonable that you might say "here, we do x, y, then z (not the more obvious a, b, then c because this would infringe US pat no. x,xxx,xxx)" - otherwise you risk someone "tweaking" the code at a later stage, to use the better(?) and more obvious(?) technique, which also happens to be patented!
Although IMO this would not solve the patent problems, I still like this approach very much. The example you give is perfect.
They must already have internal documentation for this.
Surely?
If not, they have no case for using the words "Patent Free". If "Patent Free" just means "we haven't applied for a patent for any of this stuff", then I've got a great idea for a patent free video disc format!
If they have worked all these issues through internally, then maybe they should make their reasoning public. Unless they aren't confident of their reasoning?
There is still value in claiming that they did not patent any of the underlying ideas. By publishing these ideas (together with code) no other party can patent it, thereby making it 'patent-free'.
Unfortunately, the other part of 'patent-free' involves making sure that other exsting patents do not apply to the code, and that's where the problem is.
You can have something that is completely 100% patent free. To say otherwise is nonsense!
You are right, of course; something can be patent free. But from what I have seen, only the court system can legally determine if a technology infrings on a patent that is still in effect.
I suppose that Xiph could go to court, seeking a declaration on non-infrigment, but barring that they are speaking their (perhaps correct) opinion when they claim that Ogg Vorbis is patent free.
I suppose that Xiph could go to court, seeking a declaration on non-infrigment, but barring that they are speaking their (perhaps correct) opinion when they claim that Ogg Vorbis is patent free.
Nobody is expecting Xiph to go to court to prove something. All that is wanted is at least some kind of clarifications and a bit more detailed technical explanations how they in their opinion managed to circumvent patents, so that their advertizement of Vorbis being patent free codec could be considered valid in their opinion.
Currently there's absolutely nothing concrete, except some unofficial comments on some irc-channel that insist not infringing...
I've had a little chat with Monty about this, and to summarize:
1) He is certain that Vorbis is not infringing on any of the patents mentioned.
2) He clarified that in a claim like:
1. In a method of transmitting a signal including the steps of dividing the signal into successive, overlapping blocks by means of windows, converting the partial signals contained in the blocks into a spectrum by transformation utilizing window functions within the respective said windows such that the resultant of the window functions in the respective overlapping regions of successive blocks equals 1, subsequently, coding and transmitting the resulting spectra, receiving and decoding the transmitted coded spectra, converting the decoded spectra back into partial signals by transformation, and finally, joining the blocks containing the partial signals in an overlapping manner; the improvement comprising selecting the length of the respective window functions as a function of signal amplitude changes.
The only part that is relevant is after the 'the improvement comprising...', and only if the former part applies.
3) Xiph doesn't elaborate on the patent issues because:
a) They were told by their laywers not to do so.
b) They want to avoid situations like this:
FhG guy: 'Vorbis infringes patent X!'
Public: 'OMG OMG OMG'
Vorbis guy: 'Let me spend a few hours reading through the claims of X to explain why you're wrong'
....
Vorbis guy: 'No we dont. We do xyzzy and the patent only talks about yzzy'.
AAC guy: 'But Vorbis infringens patent Y!'
Public 'OMG OMG OMG'
Vorbis guy: 'Let me spend a few hours (again) reading through the claims of Y to explain why you're wrong'
...
Vorbis guy: 'No we dont. We don't do xzxz at all but zxxz instead, and the patent only applies if you also do zyzy, whereas vorbis does zzyy.'
FhG guy: 'Vorbis infringes patent Z!'
Public: 'OMG OMG OMG'
Vorbis guy: 'AAAAAAAAAAARGH CANT GET ANY WORK DONE'
and rather have:
FhG guy: 'Vorbis infringes patent X!'
Public: 'OMG OMG OMG'
Vorbis guy: 'No.'
Public: 'Oh it was FUD'
AAC guy: 'Vorbis infringes patent Y!'
Public: 'OMG OMG OMG'
Vorbis guy: 'No.'
Public: 'Oh, it was just more FUD'
FhG guy: 'Vorbis infringes Y!'
Vorbis guy: 'Wrong again. You are stupid. Just sue us next time'
Public: 'OMG OMG OMG'
Basically, elaborating on the patent issues would not stop FUD from being used against Vorbis, might be used against it to confuse matters even more, and might make it harder for Xiph to effectively defend should it ever come to a real lawsuit.
Note, this is not an official Xiph position, it's my interepretation of the chat with Monty.
The problem is that already in this thread some people went to the specifics, and anybody can see that things are unclear and there's nothing "FUD" in that...
If discussion like this thread is marked FUD by Xiph, well then I don't know what to say, except that I disagree and can only wonder why Xiph doesn't want to discuss about this at HA. After all, there are no FhG guys posting here, as far as I can see, so it wouldn't be too bad situation for Xiph..
You did not read my post carefully enough, notably the very first sentence. According to Xiph, the relevant claims in the patents mentioned here do no apply to Vorbis. They don't want to elaborate each and every time someone _thinks_ something infringes upon Vorbis, because it is very easy to come up with something that sounds somewhat like what Vorbis might possible be doing but it takes a lot of time to actually throughly investigate each claim, let alone explain why it is not relevant.
Monty can and did point out why it didn't apply, but he is not interested in doing a throughout research each and every time someone thinks something might possibly be a problem for Vorbis. They don't have the manpower for that, and there's no point in doing it anyway.
The point about FUD is that it is much easier to spread the suspicion that Vorbis is infringing rather than to actually throughly check it out.
You did not read my post carefully enough, notably the very first sentence. According to Xiph, the relevant claims in the patents mentioned here do no apply to Vorbis.
Which boils down to whether one trusts their "patent-free"-claim and research on the subject or not.
You did not read my post carefully enough, notably the very first sentence. According to Xiph, the relevant claims in the patents mentioned here do no apply to Vorbis. They don't want to elaborate each and every time someone _thinks_ something infringes upon Vorbis, because it is very easy to come up with something that sounds somewhat like what Vorbis might possible be doing but it takes a lot of time to actually throughly investigate each claim, let alone explain why it is not relevant.
This has been covered in this thread already..
Monty can and did point out why it didn't apply, but he is not interested in doing a throughout research each and every time someone thinks something might possibly be a problem for Vorbis. They don't have the manpower for that, and there's no point in doing it anyway.
This is the first time, that I know a patent has been inspected more specifically publicly. So imo this "each and everytime" doesn't apply here.. There isn't even first time yet...
This is the first time, that I know a patent has been inspected more specifically. So imo this "each and everytime" doesn't apply here.. There isn't even first time yet...
You don't know everything JohnV
We went through this at least once before with menno.
You did not read my post carefully enough, notably the very first sentence. According to Xiph, the relevant claims in the patents mentioned here do no apply to Vorbis.
Which boils down to whether one trusts their "patent-free"-claim and research on the subject or not.
This is very much true.
Edit: Unless you pay your own lawyers.
This is the first time, that I know a patent has been inspected more specifically. So imo this "each and everytime" doesn't apply here.. There isn't even first time yet...
You don't know everything JohnV
We went through this at least once before with menno.
Obviously you replied before you saw my editing..
"This is the first time, that I know a patent has been inspected more specifically
publicly."
So imo this "each and everytime" doesn't apply here..
Why not? It's not Xiph's job to do FhG's homework, obviously
So imo this "each and everytime" doesn't apply here..
Why not? It's not Xiph's job to do FhG's homework, obviously
We are discussing about this HA thread here. This is HA thread, and HA is covering technical and scientific discussion about lossy audio codecs. There's very specific public discussion in this thread (especially in the last 2 thread pages) regarding an unclear patent and Vorbis. This hasn't happened here or anywhere else publicly before as far as I know. I don't know what FhG even has to do anymore with this HA discussion. FhG is not even here discussing...
Even more, Xiph people including you and Carsten Haese have expressed that they'd like to have an official explanation to the specific issue covered in this HA thread.. But reading the unofficial Monty's reply (via you), I fear that it starts to be more and more unlikely.
So imo this "each and everytime" doesn't apply here..
Why not? It's not Xiph's job to do FhG's homework, obviously
I think this is really sidestepping the larger issue here. Fhg was never really asking for any clarification from the Vorbis guys, they simply made a statement about a possibility of infringement. That possibility was brought up in this thread and basically exposed a problem with the current situation, namely that there is no clarification of "patent free" for 3rd parties, and that there is no way for 3rd parties to verify the reliability of this claim. Further, it's questionable as to how extensive Xiph's own knowledge of their non-infringement is given this scenario, at least as far as convincing others goes.
Whether or not Xiph thinks any of this matters or whether or not they should waste their time with the situation, the fact still remains that the "patent free" claim is, at least as far as I understand, basically the prime selling point of Vorbis. If this claim isn't treated in a more rigorous and methodical manner (as far as the public is concerned), whether Xiph has the resources to do this or not, it would definitely seem to create a conflict of interest.
The problem is that already in this thread some people went to the specifics, and anybody can see that things are unclear and there's nothing "FUD" in that...
If discussion like this thread is marked FUD by Xiph, well then I don't know what to say, except that I disagree and can only wonder why Xiph doesn't want to discuss about this at HA. After all, there are no FhG guys posting here, as far as I can see, so it wouldn't be too bad situation for Xiph..
OK, both c_haese and I have wasted way too much time on this thread. Now, you'd like Monty to spend his time on HA instead of Vorbis? Seriously, if we need to really spend time trying to convince someone of "patent non-infringement", it will be a judge, not you.
The problem is that already in this thread some people went to the specifics, and anybody can see that things are unclear and there's nothing "FUD" in that...
If discussion like this thread is marked FUD by Xiph, well then I don't know what to say, except that I disagree and can only wonder why Xiph doesn't want to discuss about this at HA. After all, there are no FhG guys posting here, as far as I can see, so it wouldn't be too bad situation for Xiph..
OK, both c_haese and I have wasted way too much time on this thread. Now, you'd like Monty to spend his time on HA instead of Vorbis? Seriously, if we need to really spend time trying to convince someone of "patent non-infringement", it will be a judge, not you.
You're missing the point here. It's not about HA, it's about the clarity of the patent situation. It's not about spending time on HA, it's about spending time clarifying the patent situation (which everyone seems to take for granted), or pointing to information already gathered so it is clarified to others.
If none of this is going to happen, or if it's simply "not important", then we're back to square one. Vorbis is "patent free", only so far as you trust unofficial statements made by the developers. For any further clarity, each individual themselves would have to put forth significant information to do an independent patent search. Not a very ideal situation it would seem...
It seems that everyone keeps going back to the "impossibility" of being absolute sure of the validity of the "patent free" claim, but I don't even think that's necessary. It would definitely go a long way towards improving the situation if there were perhaps a document with detailed information on how Vorbis manages to avoid some of the more prominent patents that Ivan was talking about. "All or nothing" aren't the only two options here -- something at all would be better than what we have now.
Oh, and just in case you're wondering why HA might be making such a big deal out of this itself, the reason is because Vorbis is often touted as an alternative if you want free licensing and assurance not having to deal with patents. The problem is that this assurance seems rather false or shallow now. As far as HA is concerned, I would like to see this matter clarified if people are going to continue asserting this "fact" on the boards here.
Whether or not Xiph thinks any of this matters or whether or not they should waste their time with the situation, the fact still remains that the "patent free" claim is, at least as far as I understand, basically the prime selling point of Vorbis. If this claim isn't treated in a more rigorous and methodical manner (as far as the public is concerned), whether Xiph has the resources to do this or not, it would definitely seem to create a conflict of interest.
Could be.
But I get the impression that Xiph.org is using their time and effort in a strictly prioritized sense, only divulging patent issues where they might deem it a practical issue/problem (convincing hardware-manufactures for support and issues where it hinders exposure of the format) and leaving the end-users to do the discussion regarding FUD (or not) on their own. In a "time is money" cost-beneficial analysis kinda way.
Call me naive, but I do believe that they had it covered before they decided on using such a strong term as "patent-free" in the meaning "not infringing".
If Ivan and Petracci discovers something tangible things might alter, but until then it is just FUD. The discussion is sound, but we cannot expect Xiph to correct everything.
Vorbis is "patent free", only so far as you trust unofficial statements made by the developers.
Yes.
For any further clarity, each individual themselves would have to put forth significant information to do an independent patent search. Not a very ideal situation it would seem...
Yes.
It would definitely go a long way towards improving the situation if there were perhaps a document with detailed information on how Vorbis manages to avoid some of the more prominent patents that Ivan was talking about. "All or nothing" aren't the only two options here -- something at all would be better than what we have now.
As explained above, Xiph thinks this is very much contrary to their interests and would only worsen the situation for them.
Oh, and just in case you're wondering why HA might be making such a big deal out of this itself, the reason is because Vorbis is often touted as an alternative if you want free licensing and assurance not having to deal with patents. The problem is that this assurance seems rather false or shallow now. As far as HA is concerned, I would like to see this matter clarified if people are going to continue asserting this "fact" on the boards here.
It seems to be basically a matter of faith.
OK, both c_haese and I have wasted way too much time on this thread. Now, you'd like Monty to spend his time on HA instead of Vorbis? Seriously, if we need to really spend time trying to convince someone of "patent non-infringement", it will be a judge, not you.
You'll never arrive at the need to convince a judge if you can't convince me.
I have (game) developers asking me whether they should use Vorbis and whether using it won't get them sued.
The answer I usually give is 'Unreal uses it, they'd be a bigger target than you are.'
Convincing? Don't think so.
As explained above, Xiph thinks this is very much contrary to their interests and would only worsen the situation for them.
Oh, and just in case you're wondering why HA might be making such a big deal out of this itself, the reason is because Vorbis is often touted as an alternative if you want free licensing and assurance not having to deal with patents. The problem is that this assurance seems rather false or shallow now. As far as HA is concerned, I would like to see this matter clarified if people are going to continue asserting this "fact" on the boards here.
It seems to be basically a matter of faith.
Right.. anybody checked if they registered the "Church of Xiph" name yet?
Just joking, but it's weird that Xiph, a non-profit organization, developing an open source, free software, completely refuses from open discussion on a pretty much neutral environment, where every party has a chance to express their opinion.
Well, it's certainly their right, if that is what they want...
We are discussing about this HA thread here. This is HA thread, and HA is covering technical and scientific discussion about lossy audio codecs. There's very specific public discussion in this thread (especially in the last 2 thread pages) regarding an unclear patent and Vorbis. This hasn't happened here or anywhere else publicly before as far as I know. I don't know what FhG even has to do anymore with this HA discussion. FhG is not even here discussing...
The issue is that the best judges of this are the people that wrote the codec and the people that invented the methods in question. Neither of us are lawyers, neither of us don't know anything about the technical nitty-gritty, most of us don't even have detailed knowledge of how a patent claim works.
We can go on for 10 more pages about whether Vorbis infringes or not, I don't think anything useful will come of it as long as the above doesn't apply.
Apparently Xiph's lawyers told them to STFU, and they're STFU. I doubt they will change this unless there's pressing reasons not to, and I haven't seen any so far.
We can go on for 10 more pages about whether Vorbis infringes or not, I don't think anything useful will come of it as long as the above doesn't apply.
So you don't think an official explanation from Xiph is any useful or clarifies the situation, or explains their position on this matter.. ok..
Time for a touch of reality here. The major number of contributors to this thread are in search of a statement, with supporting evidence, from Xiph as to how Ogg Vorbis does not infringe certain patents.
I'm sorry, but this is all back-to-front. The situation regarding Patent Law is that where infringement is claimed by a Patent Holder, the burden of proof rests with the Patent Holder to prove infringement, it does not rest with the defendant to prove in what way they do not infringe.
Xiph has taken expert legal opinion that leaves them in the position of confidence that they are not infringing any current patents. Whether Fraunhoffer, or anyone else, has asked a vague question regarding possible infringement is irrelevant to the situation. Unless and until they, or anyone else, files a suit alleging infringement there will be no direct comment from Xiph, and nor should there be. Would it be prudent for Xiph to make detailed statements regarding these matters? No, of course it wouldn't. Patent Law, almost probably more than any other, is a minefield and the last thing Xiph should be doing is providing ammunition to anyone who may consider instigating an action. I'm afraid it is very naive to expect otherwise.
So, in short, any statements other than those already made are very unlikely to be made. Indeed, it would be extremely foolish for Xiph to make any detailed statement.
This is not what people want to hear, but, as I said, it's time for a reality check.
Thank you for a good summary of the situation.
The problem is that many people want to know better why exactly Xiph thinks they are not infringing. But it is not in Xiph's (current) interest to elaborate on that.
I'm sorry, but this is all back-to-front. The situation regarding Patent Law is that where infringement is claimed by a Patent Holder, the burden of proof rests with the Patent Holder to prove infringement, it does not rest with the defendant to prove in what way they do not infringe.
The point here is not to find a definite answer to the question: is Vorbis infringing patents or not. As said before, that's something that a court must decide.
The question which is asked here is: Is Xiph's claim of Vorbis being patent free in anyway justifiable or not.
Second question could be: what position HA should take to this claim. Should HA encourage the "faith", or do something else, and if so what?
The question which is asked here is: Is Xiph's claim of Vorbis being patent free in anyway justifiable or not.
Second question could be: what position HA should take to this claim. Should HA encourage the "faith", or do something else, and if so what?
I'd think 'patent free' is probably too strong a statement to make, certainly if stated as an irrevocable truth.
It's more like 'no patents are known to apply and none are believe to exists that apply, but with todays patent situation we can never really be sure and hence won't give you any guarantees even though we tried our best'.
Time for a touch of reality here. The major number of contributors to this thread are in search of a statement, with supporting evidence, from Xiph as to how Ogg Vorbis does not infringe certain patents.
I'm sorry, but this is all back-to-front. The situation regarding Patent Law is that where infringement is claimed by a Patent Holder, the burden of proof rests with the Patent Holder to prove infringement, it does not rest with the defendant to prove in what way they do not infringe.
Xiph has taken expert legal opinion that leaves them in the position of confidence that they are not infringing any current patents. Whether Fraunhoffer, or anyone else, has asked a vague question regarding possible infringement is irrelevant to the situation. Unless and until they, or anyone else, files a suit alleging infringement there will be no direct comment from Xiph, and nor should there be. Would it be prudent for Xiph to make detailed statements regarding these matters? No, of course it wouldn't. Patent Law, almost probably more than any other, is a minefield and the last thing Xiph should be doing is providing ammunition to anyone who may consider instigating an action. I'm afraid it is very naive to expect otherwise.
So, in short, any statements other than those already made are very unlikely to be made. Indeed, it would be extremely foolish for Xiph to make any detailed statement.
This is not what people want to hear, but, as I said, it's time for a reality check.
I have to disagree here.
Everything you've just said would make sense in an ordinary case, where a company is marketing a technology and not making any sort of claim about it's patent status (other than to say that you're safe if you license your technology from us), except that this isn't the case with Xiph.
The licensing is free, and they're stating
explicitly, that not only is their technology unpatented, but that you'll also never have to worry about paying fees to another company. Up until that point, everything you've said would apply, but as soon as they make this sort of claim, then they fall into the problem of how they are going to make this claim meaningful.
So far, it looks like this:
1. The technical claims about the matter are always rather unnofficial.
2. Xiph won't disclose any info on the matter in any significant sense.
3. They won't offer indemnification.
So basically the person who is looking at their technology is left with a dilemma --
this is the reality of the situation.
They can either then simply choose to "have faith", or do their own research, which is even more unrealistic than Xiph expending a significant effort in this regard. Yes, AOL did so (supposedly), but this is definitely going to be an exception to the case considering AOL's resources and how the majority of the companies that Xiph appears to be marketing their technology to would be almost completely on the other end of the scale (can't afford to license expensive technology).
Garf gave an example of the problem created by this with his statements above.
The problem is that many people want to know better why exactly Xiph thinks they are not infringing. But it is not in Xiph's (current) interest to elaborate on that.
Right.
But the problem is that it
is in the interest of the people (non-Xiph) making use of the technology.
What to do?
You'll never arrive at the need to convince a judge if you can't convince me.
But if I spend my time trying to convince everybody out there with his own interpretation of patent laws (seems like everybody here is a lawyer), then I won't even have time to write a codec in the first place, much less defend it in front of a judge.
But if I spend my time trying to convince everybody out there with his own interpretation of patent laws (seems like everybody here is a lawyer), then I won't even have time to write a codec in the first place, much less defend it in front of a judge.
I thought these issues were already cleared in-house by Xiph, at least that is what Xiph claims. Why would it take so much time to simply justify the patent-free claim publicly?
You'll never arrive at the need to convince a judge if you can't convince me.
But if I spend my time trying to convince everybody out there with his own interpretation of patent laws (seems like everybody here is a lawyer), then I won't even have time to write a codec in the first place, much less defend it in front of a judge.
The question (which you snipped) was very simple and straight from practise, and certainly didn't need any lawyer involvement.
If you can't answer it, you do realize you are effectively saying your codec is completely unusable for any serious work, do you?
Well, let's just hope that Monty isn't diverting his time away from improving Vorbis to even just reading this thread, let alone preparing his case. It's a long and detailed one.
Well, let's just hope that Monty isn't diverting his time away from improving Vorbis to even just reading this thread, let alone preparing his case. It's a long and detailed one.
It's weird that strong Xiph supporters hope that things remain unclear. One could think that it would be everybody's benefit, not least Vorbis' (think codec's acceptance in markets), if things were explained openly and claims justified. Now everybody is awfully worried that time is taken away from Vorbis development, after over a year of waiting of any update...
If HA is not good place in their opinion to explain something openly and publicly, Xiph has a wiki which would be perfect place for it.
I have (game) developers asking me whether they should use Vorbis and whether using it won't get them sued.
The answer I usually give is 'Unreal uses it, they'd be a bigger target than you are.'
Convincing? Don't think so.
OK, so this was the question you wanted me to answer...
First bad news: there's no guarantee that you won't get sued. Face it, people sue over anything these days. If I don't like your face, I can sue you (though the odds of winning are low ). Second bad news: regardless of what codec you use (free or proprietary), there's always a (small) threat of submarine patents and the like. Third bad news: even without the codec your game is probably already infringing on about 100 stupid (IMO) patents (1-click shooting ).
Conclusion: Using Vorbis, you don't really increase the risk of being sued anyway, and at least you don't have to pay (very) expensive royalties. It's a sad state, but there just isn't much you can do about it.
One other thing (original argument by Bruce Perens), they won't "sue Vorbis" over an MP3-related patent unless they're pretty sure of their case. They wouldn't gain much if they win and if they lose and the patent is being invalidated (prior art, trivial, ...), they lose lots revenues from MP3 licensing.
Well, let's just hope that Monty isn't diverting his time away from improving Vorbis to even just reading this thread, let alone preparing his case. It's a long and detailed one.
It's weird that strong Xiph supporters hope that things remain unclear. One could think that it would be everybody's benefit, not least Vorbis' (think codec's acceptance in markets), if things were explained openly and claims justified. Now everybody is awfully worried that time is taken away from Vorbis development, after over a year of waiting of any update...
If HA is not good place in their opinion to explain something openly and publicly, Xiph has a wiki which would be perfect place for it.
These patenting issues should be addressed by the relevant people at Xiph.org, not just a single person (ie. Monty). One of the benefits of having an organisation of people rather than a single programmer is that tasks can be diverted and allocated. Monty is the only single person developing Vorbis at Xiph.org so any distraction for him is time that is lost. We cant expect him to also check the mail, empty the trash, check the bills, maintain the website, fix the coffee machine, as well as program, can we?
The odd thing here is, that the patent mentioned is in standard set of patents pursued in MP3/AAC/AC3/... codecs, and if Xiph has done any in-depth patent search they probably checked this particular one first.
So, very brief technical explanation how they don't infringe patent would be probably easy to make, but it seems that Xiph is simply not going to do so.
The discussion is far from FUD - it is pure technical data and set of very specific patent related question without generalizing of any sort - kinda "straight" questions. HA is a technical forum, nobody here is stating "I believe Vorbis is infringing some patents..." - the questions were much more specific, related to one specific patent and to specific technology and implementation.
Of course, Xiph do not have any obligation to answer that - and that's not bad at all, but it leaves some things pretty unanswered.
FACT: Xiph claims in several places on it's sites that vorbis is *patent free* and there are no licence fees for its use, privately or commercially.
As aforesaid, Xiph has taken expert advice that leads it to believe that these statements regarding patents and licencing are reasonable and sensible claims.
In the event that these claims are contested at some future time, what is the conseqential reality? Is there likely to be any comeback on us individuals who have used the codec? Extremely unlikely. The cost of litigation is such that no one is likely to pursue such an action without there being significant financial gain as a result. Is Xiph, itself, likely to be subject to litigation in respect of the alleged patent infringement? Possibly, but considering that the plaintiff would be unlikely to reap much financial gain from so doing, the more likely consequence would be that licence fees are subsequently introduced, or that Xiph shuts up shop and vorbis simply ceases to exist.
Surely the people most at risk are the commercial organisations that are using the codec for financial reward and would surely be more lucrative targets. Any commercial organisation using vorbis has a simple commercial judgement to make. If they are satisfied that the claims regarding the patent situation are justifed, then they simply use it and face the music later if there is a successful action. If they are in any doubt, they can either decide not to use vorbis and pay the licence fees for mp3,etc., or they can use vorbis and insure themselves against the risk. It is possible, I suppose, that in this situation, Xiph might make available the opinion they obtained, but subject to a non-disclosure agreement.
None of this alters the fact that it would be nonsense for Xiph to enter into any public debate on the subject, however interesting it may be to certain parties. One does not voluntarily enter into a public debate on such a subject. It is one of those things that will only ever be argued in court, if it ever becomes necessary.
That's fair enough john33, but using that argument, you might as well use MusePack. It's (possibly) not patent free, but that's unlikely to be a problem, for exactly the same reasons.
I can see the Ogg point of view too (that garf quoted), but I don't think it helps them. "Patent Free" is their number one claim to fame - if it has to be their number one time commitment, so be it. Without it, Ogg has no reason to exist.
Cheers,
David.
If it has to be their number one time commitment, so be it.
I may have misread but is the point not that it would be a large time commitment
with absolutely no benefit.
Surely you can't expect any rational person to undertake such a task.
That's fair enough john33, but using that argument, you might as well use MusePack. It's (possibly) not patent free, but that's unlikely to be a problem, for exactly the same reasons.
Except that MusePack is not fully open sourced and the suggested patents that may be infringed are about to expire. But surely the whole point is that the vorbis code has been in the public domain for some considerable period of time and no one has yet seen fit to contest the claim of absence of patent infringement. How long does it take for likely interested parties to review the code and form a judgement? Not too long I would have thought.
I can see the Ogg point of view too (that garf quoted), but I don't think it helps them. "Patent Free" is their number one claim to fame - if it has to be their number one time commitment, so be it. Without it, Ogg has no reason to exist.
"Patent Free" may be their number one claim to fame and they're comfortable with the claim. Why on earth would they want to spend additional effort demonstrating something in which they already have complete confidence. To suggest that vorbis has no reason to exist without it is something of an exaggeration, I think.
Except that MusePack is not fully open sourced and the suggested patents that may be infringed are about to expire. But surely the whole point is that the vorbis code has been in the public domain for some considerable period of time and no one has yet seen fit to contest the claim of absence of patent infringement.
The claim about the patent infringement has been questioned on this very forum by analysing the
relevant patent and the
source code - there is enough technical data gained to have a good debate about the issue, and I am confident that the answer from the Xiph could be straight |Yes| or |No| with a very short technical explanation.
The thing is, that nobody is going to test that on court - I am quite confident that the inventor/patent holder are not that interested in testing that (there are some important projects potentialy infringing that apart from Vorbis) but the part of the HA skilled in the art do have their questions that demand some kind of technical answer.
The only question is, are Xiph/Vorbis devs, willing to discuss about that - or not. It is their right not to discuss about the issue - but I think there would be lot of scientific benefit if someone really seriously discuss about the issue.
"Patent Free" may be their number one claim to fame and they're comfortable with the claim. Why on earth would they want to spend additional effort demonstrating something in which they already have complete confidence.
Maybe to convince other parties of that as well, eh... I guess they aren't making the codec only for themselves and praise the patent freeness just for fun???
We come back to the "faith" issue. So everybody else should just have faith, because Xiph doesn't see it necessary to justify its claims in anyway.
The claim about the patent infringement has been questioned on this very forum by analysing the relevant patent and the source code - there is enough technical data gained to have a good debate about the issue, and I am confident that the answer from the Xiph could be straight |Yes| or |No| with a very short technical explanation.
[span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%']The thing is, that nobody is going to test that on court[/span] - I am quite confident that the inventor/patent holder are not that interested in testing that (there are some important projects potentialy infringing that apart from Vorbis) but the part of the HA skilled in the art do have their questions that demand some kind of technical answer.
And I believe that answers the entire matter. The official line from Xiph has already been that they won't answer these accusations, per instructions from their lawyers. Whether or not I were to agree with it, it certainly makes sense for them to obey their lawyers.
The only question is, are Xiph/Vorbis devs, willing to discuss about that - or not. It is their right not to discuss about the issue - but I think there would be lot of scientific benefit if someone really seriously discuss about the issue.
I think Xiph would have a lot more to lose legally than anyone would have to gain scientifically. If all Xiph representatives are smart (and I'm sure they are), they will not be responding to this thread. After a few more "pings", I'm quite confident that this thread will fade into ancient history. And hence will be remembered as a victory for Xiph. I know this is quite debatable, but look at it this way: They were seriously challenged. They shared more than they ever had to. No court case was brought forth. Perhaps they can add this to their collection (if they have one) of instances in which Vorbis' "patent-free" status was challenged and not proven to be wrong. And no, the burden was never on them to "prove it is indeed patent-free"...that would be equivalent to proving one's own innocence. They are taking the same tact anyone should in the such a predicament: 1. Keep mouth shut. 2. Watch events closely. 3. Don't make the mistake of speaking. (Which they did somewhat anyway, but to no detriment fortunately.)
As for whether they should keep calling Vorbis "patent-free" after all of this...how much does it matter?
More or
less than Ahead calling a 48kbps lossy encoding equivalent to "CD quality"? (A minor comparison, but relevant in principle.) Marketing is marketing. Maybe when all marketing in the world becomes completely FUD-free, then Xiph should change their tag line for Vorbis. Until then, who's to tell them to be "more correct" than any other company in describing their products?
Not intending any ill will towards anyone, simply a bit fed up with all of this and glad to see it's end.
After a few more "pings", I'm quite confident that this thread will fade into ancient history. And hence will be remembered as a victory for Xiph.
I don't see how these threads, which clearly leave the situation unclear could possibly be seen as "victory for Xiph". At least one thing follows from this thread: HA has to figure out what is its official line regarding the patent free -claims on HA forums, and how HA should react when somebody uses this claim in a debate comparing for example Vorbis and Musepack.
As for whether they should keep calling Vorbis "patent-free" after all of this...how much does it matter? More or less than Ahead calling a 48kbps lossy encoding equivalent to "CD quality"? (A minor comparison, but relevant in principle.) Marketing is marketing. Maybe when all marketing in the world becomes completely FUD-free, then Xiph should change their tag line for Vorbis. Until then, who's to tell them to be "more correct" than any other company in describing their products?
Heh.. These 2 claims are so far apart than just can be. The other one is the main selling point and pretty much the entire philosophy behind the product. The other one is a subjective advertizement claim following the common marketing trends.
I don't see how these threads, which clearly leave the situation unclear could possibly be seen as "victory for Xiph". At least one thing follows from this thread: HA has to figure out what is its official line regarding the patent free -claims on HA forums, and how HA should react when somebody uses this claim in a debate comparing for example Vorbis and Musepack.
I understand the issue for HA, I just can't see it as being an issue for Xiph, especially since they have specific instructions to
not comment on this issue. And for the record, I promise personally to never claim Vorbis is "patent-free" anywhere else in HA outside the scope of this thread's discussion, unless told otherwise later.
As for whether they should keep calling Vorbis "patent-free" after all of this...how much does it matter? More or less than Ahead calling a 48kbps lossy encoding equivalent to "CD quality"? (A minor comparison, but relevant in principle.) Marketing is marketing. Maybe when all marketing in the world becomes completely FUD-free, then Xiph should change their tag line for Vorbis. Until then, who's to tell them to be "more correct" than any other company in describing their products?
Heh.. These 2 claims are so far apart than just can be. The other one is the main selling point and pretty much the entire philosophy behind the product. The other one is a subjective advertizement claim following the common marketing trends.
That's why I stated that it's a minor comparison (I should have said a
vague comparison instead), but the basic philosophy is still similar in nature. Marketing is marketing. I don't see being "patent-free" as the
entire philosophy behind Vorbis...they claim Vorbis is an open-source codec, they claim that Vorbis provides better quality then MP3 at certain bitrates (per the www.vorbis.com page), they claim that Vorbis is just one encoding format that can be used in the Ogg container,
and they claim that Vorbis is patent-free. Just because it's at the very top of their web page doesn't mean it's their
entire philosophy. I detect other philosophies as well there. But a very important philosophy behind their product, yes. Regardless of how powerful the philosophy is, it's still a marketing issue. How HA wants to it to be represented is an important consideration, but not one for them (Xiph) to even be involved in, I maintain. As for the Ahead claims being part of "common marketing trends" I completely agree. Trends which still need correction, though. Ahead seems to be a decent place to start. Perhaps they could set an example for other companies? It's the least they could do to drop such a
minor claim if they're asking Xiph to drop such an
important claim.
[...] and how HA should react when somebody uses this claim in a debate comparing for example Vorbis and Musepack.
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?
[...] and how HA should react when somebody uses this claim in a debate comparing for example Vorbis and Musepack.
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.
Well, sure - I understand Xiph's position and decision to obey the professional legal advice... but the ironic part is that company which supports the "era of open and free multimedia" is not willing to participiate in scientific discussion regarding the underlying algorithms in their flagship open product.
I've been reading this topic for quite sometime and it seems to me
that what is happening here is "deaf talk" (direct "translation" from
my mother-tong). Let me try to summarize:
The main point has turned to: can vorbis self proclaim itself as
patent free? How should HA face a "patent free" claim from a vorbis
supporter? The problem is that there are at least two definitions of
"patent free":
1) The Xiph definition. As already pointed out here in
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....=13686&st=100&# (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=13686&st=100&#)
it seems they want to imply that they have not a patented the codec
(or part of it), that conscious effort was made to avoid known
patents, and that they have even asked legal help to confirm their
claim.
2) Patent free == no known patent problems at all.
Unfortunately those two points of view can not be reconciled due to
legal aspects where discussing patents in public may fire back in
a real litigation. I don't know you, but I have already saw enough
legal madness to believe that precaution is good if you can ever go to
court (even if you believe that you are on the right side). This is
certainly frustrating, though. I believe it is certainly frustrating
for Xiph people too.
Hence to settle things down, the HA community should choose one of the
two definitions above (or come out with a third one), and cite it when
the term "patent free" appears elsewhere in the forum.
Finally, I don't believe that Xiph is not willing to participate on a
scientific discussion regarding vorbis. They have published all the
documentation and code related to vorbis and would certainly discuss
any technical aspect of how it works or how it can be improved. Xiph
is just not willing to participate in a lengthy discussion about
vorbis patent situation, which, at the end, is a matter of law and not
science.
My two cents.
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.
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?
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.
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).
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]
#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"?
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".
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)
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.
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).
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...
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.
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.)
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.
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
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.
But until this...
Because FhG didn't officially say that they knew about patents that Vorbis is using.
...is stated officially, I'd contend that this...
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.
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!
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).
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
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.
[removed in the interest of unfraying nerves ]
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).
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.
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.
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
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..
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)...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Whoa, that's not what I intended to say. OK, I should have said "demand" instead of "ask"... but the tone of "asking" in this thread has been pretty strong. But that's just my opinion. Correction accepted.
cya
Position: The "patent-free" status can be proven or disproven.
This would require defining the subject(s) and goals, defining scope, performing testing/analysis, observing the results (analysis output), and then reaching a conclusion in a timely and controlled manner. This is not essential to the effort, but would benefit the scientific as well as legal value of it, among other ways by providing adequate organization. To confirm patent infringement, patents would have to be "triaged" and tested until one is found to be infringed upon. Current work in another thread is addressing at least one patent, but if nothing conclusive is found, then perhaps some version of the method in this post could help with a continued effort in that thread.
This is obviously a first draft in need of input for refinement, so please critique as necessary.
>>>>>
[Phase One (1.0.0)] Determining The Status of Ogg Vorbis As Being Free Of Infringement Of US Patents
1.1.0 Goals.
1.1.1 Prove that Vorbis infringes upon one or more patents using the process defined herein.
1.1.2 Prove that Vorbis does not infringe upon any patents by analyzing every relevant patent and eliminating it from the list determined in Scope Definition below.
1.2.0 Process Description. Test all of the Vorbis code against all possibly relevant patents currently in effect using the method defined in herein.
1.3.0 Scope Definition. This section descibes a method of identification of test subjects (patents and code) and of defining the scope of analysis. As a start, I ran a search for "audio AND encoding AND format" on the patft.uspto.gov website and it returned 9016 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=0&p=1&f=S&l=50&Query=audio+AND+encoding+AND+format&d=ptxt) matches. For "signal AND transmission AND window" I received 37599 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=0&p=1&f=S&l=50&Query=signal+AND+transmission+AND+window&d=ptxt) matches. If a better search criteria can be used, it should be done at this point in the process.
1.3.1 : Parse out the clearly unrelated patents from the list.
1.3.2 : Prioritize all remaining patents by relevance.
1.3.3 : Determine the workload (in man-hours) of analyzing all patents in the prioritized list. All aspects of patent claims, descriptions and references must be considered to ensure the integrity of this process. References in patent definitions are often nested; one patent can have a list of references to other patent documents, each of which can have their own lists of references to yet other patent documents. The total contents of a patent definition will determine the number of man-hours required to fully analyze that patent. Determine the total man-hours of work for all patents in the prioritized list to determine the total duration of the analysis portion of this project.
[Work Units] x [Man Hours / Work Unit] = [Duration of Analysis]
Note that the project may reach a conclusion sooner than it's total duration as defined, if Goal 1.1.1 is satisfied at any point in the process.
1.3.4 : As each patent is analyzed for scope impact, also prioritize the list from step 1.3.2 again by using more detailed points of relevance.
1.4.0 Analysis. Perform a detailed study (test) of each patent definition, as prioritized from Scope 1.3.4 above by comparing all included claims, descriptions, and all references (including nested references) to Vorbis source code (and if required, to Vorbis' intended functionality as described in application design and architecture documents).
Once Goal 1.1.1 is met, proceed to the Conclusion section.
If Goal 1.1.1 is not met, analysis must continue until either Goal 1.1.1 or Goal 1.1.2 can be met.
If Goal 1.1.1 is not met within a reasonable time window (one month?), the Scope Definition will have to be repeated in order to include any new patents which were approved after this project began. Note that this can be done in "parallel" with continuing analysis work. New additions to the scope definition can be merged into the current workflow accordingly. Integrity checks will have to be performed to insure analysis output is not adversely affected by merging new scope definitions into the continuing analysis workflow.
Current Progress: US #5,214,742
Analysis output would comprise a statement by the analyst declaring Vorbis to either be free of a patent or infringing on a patent. One statement per patent should be feasible in most cases, unless the scope of a patent is unusually broad and requires multiple levels of analysis.
1.5.0 Observation On a (defined) regular basis, gather the analysis output for all patents analyzed to date and using the data gathered, confirm that either Goal 1.1.1 or Goal 1.1.2 has been reached. Until one of the defined goals has been reached, Analysis and periodic Scope Definition will continue.
Once all patents in the latest iteration of Scope Definition have been analyzed and Observation is complete, then proceed to the next section, Conclusion.
If any new US patents are published (filed) before a conclusion has been determined, then processing returns to Analysis and periodic Scope Definition.
1.6.0 Conclusion.
1.6.1 : If Goal 1.1.1 is met, the conclusion is that Vorbis infringes upon the relevant patent described in the analysis output and discovered either during Analysis or Observation. Vorbis can no longer rightfully claim "patent-free" status.
1.6.2 : If the process defined herein is completed without Goal 1.1.1 being met, then by default Goal 1.1.2 is met and Vorbis has been proven to be "patent-free" at the moment of the last analysis. Once the next US patent is published (filed), this process must be repeated starting with Scope Definition in order to maintain Vorbis' "patent-free" status.
[end of Phase One]
<<<<<
>>>>>
[Phase Two (2.0.0)] Determining The Status of Ogg Vorbis As Being Free Of Infringement Of International Patents
2.1.0 Goals.
2.1.1 . . .
<<<<<
Well, you get the idea.
Edit: Adding another search result for Scope Definition (1.3.0), changed intro and closing.
Determining The Status of Ogg Vorbis As Being Free Of Infringement Of US Patents
US patents are NOT world patents...
...and often suckz !
Threads re-arranged. This thread includes the non-technical discussion.
All technical discussion should go here:
Vorbis development, status & patent issues PART 2 - Technical discussion (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=13531)
Currently the Vorbis patent issue covers these threads:
Vorbis development, status & patent issues PART 1 - NON-technical discussion (This thread) (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=13686)
Vorbis development, status & patent issues PART 2 - Technical discussion (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=13531)
How can it be impossible for anyone but a patent attorney to tell how to avoid a patent if a patent free codec exists that has been written by a non-attorney and avoids said patent?
You have previously said that the main argument for Vorbis' patent freedom is that it's developer was cautious not to use any patented techniques. If such a development strategy is to have any advantage, mustn't it be possible for the developer - not being a patent attorney - to form a technical opinion on a patent? And if it is possible to form an opinion, isn't it also possible to discuss it?
How can it be impossible for anyone but a patent attorney to tell how to avoid a patent if a patent free codec exists that has been written by a non-attorney and avoids said patent?
I think it would be possible indeed for a non-attorney (codec developer) to be sure of avoiding patent infringement if they can be familiar enough with the scope and content of all relevant patents to be avoided. Identifying that scope and then analysing the patents are time-intensive tasks, but actually possible by
anyone familiar with the subject matter (source code). Something like the method above could be used to this end, as it was meant to [1] lend control to such an effort, and [2] limit the FUD that inevitably arises in an effort susceptable to bias and interpretation (as has happened repeatedly) by being able to parse out discreet analysis results as required.
You have previously said that the main argument for Vorbis' patent freedom is that it's developer was cautious not to use any patented techniques. If such a development strategy is to have any advantage, mustn't it be possible for the developer - not being a patent attorney - to form a technical opinion on a patent? And if it is possible to form an opinion, isn't it also possible to discuss it?
Not sure who has said this, and forgive me if I'm out of place responding. I completely agree, though that makes me wonder about something. Does Xiph claim a "patent-free" status mainly because they avoided relevant patents? Or mainly because they didn't patent any part of Vorbis themselves? If the former is the case, then the matter is complex and would require some form of organized effort if anyone wanted to attempt validation of the technical opinion(s) of the developer. If the latter is the case, then at least a cursory confirmation would be easy (an initial search for "Xiph" in the USPTO online database returns 0 matches). Other names a patent could have been filed under by them could be searched similarly, but a formal (read: expensive) patent search would be required for anything to be presented in court, even if the results are null.
The concept of "avoiding patents" seems to be the understood intent. (Just brainstorming.) As for the developers ability to openly discuss their opinion, that would require the blessing of their lawyer first to keep them "out of trouble".
Not sure who has said this, and forgive me if I'm out of place responding.
He was talking about JMvalin. The admins keep jugling the posts back and forth among the threads, making a mess out of it in the meantime.
Not sure who has said this, and forgive me if I'm out of place responding.
He was talking about JMvalin. The admins keep jugling the posts back and forth among the threads, making a mess out of it in the meantime.
There are only 2 threads. Technical and non-technical talk, so it should be really simple.. provided that people post to the correct thread. And there wasn't much juggling.. Part2 started originally technical but turned non-technical, so only the non-technical posts from part2 were moved here. If you have a better idea how to make these threads more clear, so that technical points aren't buried in the middle of all the other posts, please share with me.
If you have a better idea how to make these threads more clear, so that technical points aren't buried in the middle of all the other posts, please share with me.
I had no problem with both threads together, really.
Now, with threads split, we are being plagued by several posts referencing and quoting posts that are in another thread. It's hard to follow the discussion this way.
These posts are good examples. They quote posts that are nowhere to be seen in that thread:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=137675 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=13531&view=findpost&p=137675)
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=137639 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=13531&view=findpost&p=137639)
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=137709 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=13531&view=findpost&p=137709)
(all this only in the first page of the technical thread)
If you have a better idea how to make these threads more clear, so that technical points aren't buried in the middle of all the other posts, please share with me.
I had no problem with both threads together, really.
Now, with threads split, we are being plagued by several posts referencing and quoting posts that are in another thread. It's hard to follow the discussion this way.
These posts are good examples. They quote posts that are nowhere to be seen in that thread:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=137675 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=13531&view=findpost&p=137675)
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=137639 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=13531&view=findpost&p=137639)
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=137709 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=13531&view=findpost&p=137709)
(all this only in the first page of the technical thread)
Well I wasn't thinking of you with the split.. I was mainly thinking of developers so that they wouldn't have to first read 200 posts in order to reach the essential parts, and then later try to find the technical posts among all these "analogies" and off-topic messages.
Any mess with quotes should be very minimal (and if there are clearly marked 2 threads, how hard it is to understand where a quote comes from anyway). The first post you linked is in the correct thread now. The 3rd link's quote was from the message above it, so there is no mess there.
But oh well.. some people are just never happy.. I try to do my best here. If you think you are better for the admin job, you can cover me for few weeks so that I can take some time off of this...
But oh well.. some people are just never happy.. I try to do my best here. If you think you are better for the admin job, you can cover me for few weeks so that I can take some time off of this...
Haha. And you say I am the dramaaddict.
No, JohnV. You know I don't want to be an admin/mod and you know why.
Thanks for the clarification.
Well, to be honest (and I actually read the logs beginning to end first thing this morning), I see the need for both sides to have their needs met. I think you've stated the request for clarification very articulately, John, and Ivan has found a clear issue with a particular function in the Vorbis source which comes very close to one of Bernd Edlar's patents, and seems to have defined the issue clearly.
But I also (for the most part) understand the limitations that Monty and Jack and the rest the Xiph people have limiting them from being able to say much at all. Maybe if they can have a little time (a month or less, hopefully) to work with their lawyers to prepare something official, they may come up with something thorough enough to satisfy you guys, and Vorbis users, and hardware companies who are considering a Vorbis implementation. If not, these issues could be addressed again (more vigorously, even) using the data gathered in this thread as a reference.
I just couldn't envision anything happening, based on what Carsten and Jean Marc have stated here, and what everyone said in the meeting yesterday, sooner than the time they can put together such a statement. If it were anything less critical, then there wouldn't be so much for them to be concerned about. But consider that they're on dangerous ground, just as any company would be when it comes to patent law. And of all realms of law, to my knowledge patent law is one of the most complex and poorly defined concerning infraction and enforcement.
I'd say if Xiph can't provide an adequate resolution in the form of an acceptably thorough statement within a reasonable (short) timeframe, only then should the matter be pushed further.
Just my $0.02...
Edit: BTW...I do think JohnV's concerns were "pushed to the side" a bit briskly, but perhaps only as a defensive reaction by Xiph members, for a reason previously described in this post.
Also, other considerations (out of current scope, but future concerns?). Most people here are probably familiar with all of these, just pointing them out for those who may not be...
At Xiph.org, Speex is also called a "patent-free" codec, though this not the case for Theora (unspecified patent/licensing status, only described as an "open technology"), Paranoia (nothing specified about openness/patent/licensing) nor Icecast (GNU Public License).
The description of FLAC there is interesting, though, and might have been a better way to describe Vorbis to avoid the current situation of an "under-explained" patent status. For FLAC, they say "...neither the FLAC format nor any of the implemented encoding/decoding methods are covered by any known patent." It seems a little more descriptive than simply saying "patent-free", though it may imply the same thing. However, there would be no easier way to prove that it's not "covered by any known patent" than it would be to prove that Vorbis is "patent-free". One sounds explanatory and the other sounds like a marketing line, but both say the same essential thing.
Just something to think about.
......... though this not the case for Theora (unspecified patent/licensing status, only described as an "open technology").........
From the FAQ page at www.theora.org
Q: Isn't vp3 a patented technology?
A: Yes, some portions of the vp3 codec are covered by patents. However, the Xiph.org Foundation has negotiated an irrevocable free license to the vp3 codec for any purpose imaginable on behalf of the public. It is legal to use vp3 in any way you see fit (unless, of course, you're doing something illegal with it in your particular jurisdiction). You are free to download vp3, use it free of charge, implement it in a for-sale product, implement it in a free product, make changes to the source and distribute those changes, or print the source code out and wallpaper your spare room with it.
For more information, check the VP3 Legal Terms on the CVS page.
Q: What is the license for Theora?
A: Theora (and all associated technologies released by the Xiph.org Foundation) is released to the public via a BSD-style license. It is completely free for commercial or noncommercial use. That means that commercial developers may independently write Theora software which is compatible with the specification for no charge and without restrictions of any kind.
A: Yes, some portions of the vp3 codec are covered by patents. However, the Xiph.org Foundation has negotiated an irrevocable free license to the vp3 codec for any purpose imaginable on behalf of the public. It is legal to use vp3 in any way you see fit (unless, of course, you're doing something illegal with it in your particular jurisdiction). You are free to download vp3, use it free of charge, implement it in a for-sale product, implement it in a free product, make changes to the source and distribute those changes, or print the source code out and wallpaper your spare room with it.
Some portions of vp3 are covered by patents...
Who owns these patents? On2, or third party?
If the answer is "third party" does Xiph mean that they negotiated irrevocable free license to the vp3 codec
with On2 or
with third party IPR holders ?
I am afraid that I can't answer those questions but I'll quote some other parts from the theora site from which it seems (at least to me) that xiph has negotiated irrevocable free license to the vp3 codec with On2.
From http://www.theora.org/theorafaq.html (http://www.theora.org/theorafaq.html)
Q: What if Xiph.org and On2 decide to break off their agreement?
A: Because Theora is an Open Source project, the source code will continue to be available and development will continue. Users will still be protected from the On2 patents.
From http://www.theora.org/cvs.html (http://www.theora.org/cvs.html)
[ VP3 Legal Terms ]
On2 represents and warrants that it shall not assert any rights relating to infringement of On2's registered patents, nor initiate any litigation asserting such rights, against any person who, or entity which utilizes the On2 VP3 Codec Software, including any use, distribution, and sale of said Software; which make changes, modifications, and improvements in said Software; and to use, distribute, and sell said changes as well as applications for other fields of use.
You can still sue when Vorbis gets too big. (And they might do this, even if they _dont_ have any good grounds to do so, see SCO example)
actually a question in the courts would be if fhg knew about infringement but
chose not to do anything about it, not even a simple c&d, judges don't like that. there's a legal precedent that when you are aware of damages you are
legally compelled to reduce them asap. if you sit on them today just waiting for them to "grow" in hopes of profiting tomorrow, a judge is likely to rule against
you.
fhg publically claim vorbis infringes, yet they
knowingly and willingly choose not to mitigate damages, leads me to believe that fhg are just full of s*it.
i'm guessing that iriver, neuros, rio, etc came to the same conclusion.
iriver broke almost a half billion dollars in revenue (http://www.forbes.com/technology/newswire/2004/05/20/rtr1378542.html) recently. fhg can no longer claim ogg is "too small to bother with".
the fact that fhg continues to sit on their hands and do nothing digs fhg into a deeper and deeper hole.