Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Vorbis development, status & patent issues (Read 66332 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #175 –
Quote
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?
Juha Laaksonheimo

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #176 –
Quote
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'.

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #177 –
Quote
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.

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #178 –
Quote
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?

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #179 –
Quote
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.

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #180 –
Quote
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?
Juha Laaksonheimo

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #181 –
Quote
Quote
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?

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #182 –
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.

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #183 –
Quote
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.
Juha Laaksonheimo

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #184 –
Quote
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.

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #185 –
Quote
Quote
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?

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #186 –
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.

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #187 –
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.

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #188 –
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.

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #189 –
Quote
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.

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #190 –
Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #191 –
Quote
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.

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #192 –
Quote
"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.
Juha Laaksonheimo

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #193 –
Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #194 –
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Juha Laaksonheimo

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #195 –
Quote
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.   

Quote
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?
Quote
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.

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #196 –
Quote
[...] 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?

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #197 –
Quote
Quote
[...] 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.
Juha Laaksonheimo

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #198 –
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.

Vorbis development, status & patent issues

Reply #199 –
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&#

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.