Slashdot Mirror
Ogg Vorbis Update: Thomson Trouble
3.1415926535 writes: "In this article on C|Net,
Thompson Multimedia's vice president of new business Henri Linde openly threatens the Vorbis project. The quote is, 'We doubt very much that they are not using Fraunhofer and Thomson intellectual property. We think it is likely they are infringing.'"
Considering
Ogg Vorbis
is GPL, you'd think they'd already know.
That wouldn't involve getting out of my chair, would it? If so, I'm afraid I can't help you. I can't even get up to get the remote control. I've been watching the Weather Channel for weeks now because the remote is on the other side of the room.
I ran across this information while on the LAME page, which has as one of its goals a completely patent-free audio codec. Look here: to see some of the myriad patents on audio compression techniques.
<insert diatribe on how patents on intellectual property should be abolished, etc>
---
Also note:
"(b) Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.".
So even a plugin-type architecture where the plugin is downloaded from xiph.org could be considered a violation.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
Anyhow, given the amount of per-unit costs to be saved by availability of Vorbis -- I wouldn't be surprised to see hardware manufacturers (individually or collectively) supporting Vorbis for what it is. They certainly feel the need.
As for GNOME, just because it tries to attract business involvement doesn't mean it's under business control. I can still download the source, hack on it, fork it if I like. So can you. What's so evil about having a few companies pay people to hack?
I say this as a guy who gets paid to work on free software -- commercial involvement really ain't all that bad. Trust Me. (tm).
He may come across that way, but after reading some of his in depth technical posts, he is also an incredibly bright person. If you read the LKML often, you will see that there are quite a few people that come across as being jerks. Once you get to know how they talk though, you can see that they really aren't that bad.
Never confuse how a person says something with what they say.
--
Mike Mangino
Sr. Software Engineer, SubmitOrder.com
Mike Mangino
mmangino@acm.org
The Macintosh GUI, AFAIK, was not covered by any Apple patents. Apple did have number of patents on its redesign of the mouse, on various pieces of hardware, and numerous design patents. But in 1983, the uspto granted few[er] software patents.
The "look and feel" lawsuits (circa 1989) were based on copyright law.
Of course, if software patentabilty had been established in 1983, and if the uspto operated under today's lax standard, Apple probably would have patented all it could. It might even have won its lawsuits against Microsoft.
Today, of course, a search for "(an/apple)" on the USPTO web site reveals numerous software patents (trivial and otherwise).
As the article pointed out, Thompson and Fraunhoefer should know by now whether or not Vorbis infringes. The fact that they only "think" it "probably does" indicates they're just FUDding.
And if Vorbis does in fact infringe on one patent or another, it's nothing more than a sign that the patent was too broad in the first place. Honestly, this is the trouble with software patents; they don't protect the actual work (which is the code); they only stifle competition when applied to the context of software. Then again, this makes sense, as software is a written work and not a device (which is precisely why it shouldn't be patented; it falls into a completely different category of IP, where only copyright ought to apply).
----------
--
Actually independent development doesn't help you avoid patent infringement at all. It probably did help Apple avoid paying to use Adobe's copyright on their Display PS/PDF system, but if Apple used techniques that Adobe has patents on, they are liable.
Again, this means nothing. GIF writing software, including GPL'd software, was widely available for years before Unisys decided to start enforcing their patent. Unisys won (sorta, in reality most free software ignores the patent and Unisys ignores them. But commericial software makers most certainly cough up the fee to Unisys.
That said, I have no idea if Adobe has any patents on the techniques in question, no idea if Adobe enforces such patents, and no idea if Apple is paying for such patents.
The government granted monopoly of a patent does not expire just because it isn't enforced. That's part of the danger of patents, you can wait for a technique to become a standard, then you can start charging.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
Levi's made a similar decision to not hire me. Soon after that, had major layoffs as a result of a 94% reduction of their sales.
- Sam
The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.
Gah, you're so damned altruistic it makes me want to pay you. Where do I send money? I don't see anywhere on Xiph.org for donations....
I was just sitting looking at gracenote's 'documentation' they deigned to send me and shaking my head when I popped up slashdot and saw this....
;-)
Not only do they want to go after formats using mathematical constructs which they think they have a right to but they also want royalties for TCP/UDP/Whatever data transfers if the data just happens to be mp3 and the client decides it wants to play it while receiving . i.e. mp3 streaming.....
I did the whole live mp3 radio before they demonstrated any technology to do it... maybe I can claim prior art over mp3 streaming and distract attention away from vorbis
> Actually, some of us do have in-depth knowledge of signal processing. I've been playing with my own CODEC projects in my (near-mythical) free time.
You'll just be next to be sued. Who says we don't have thought police?
--
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
No it is not time to calm down. It is time to bash down these folks, Monty. Because if you leave these guys thinking that cheap words make a lot of more noise than lawyers then, soon, we will have three, four, five coporations shouting FUD in several other programs. And later we may face wholescale FUD on OpenSource. Because it will cost nothing to do it. You FUD the whole community and they only *sigh* in answer. And you get your customers, your silly users, the consumer herd for the price of nothing. Thomson could have long ago checked if oggvorbis was a violation of their patents. It costs NOTHING for them to get the algorithm, the source code and the programs. So why to FUD that way? I would accept something like "we checked their code and we have strong suspicions they may be violating our patent rights". But no. He speaks about some vaporous "possible violation" and leaves in the air the idea they are eager to get up to you. No more no less.
Such freeware FUD should not be tolerated. If one has a case, let him show it. If not, then his opinions are covered by the GPL. And can be copied, transferred, modified and used against him for free... but no one has the right to sell it to no one...
Not exactly. The guy is not so stupid. He built his phrase smartly enough to avoid a clear case of libel. Look carefully:
"We doubt very much that they are not using Fraunhofer and Thomson intellectual property. We think it is likely they are infringing.'"
The guy expresses only a state of mind. A supposition, a doubt. In other terms, his opinion. In court he may state several reasons for not having seen oggvorbis code. Real or unreal he can state them, restate that he has a right to express his opinion and get clean with this one.
What is really interesting is that, under the conditions oggvorbis is dispatched to the public, they are still "thinking". This would sound like people thinking and communicating at old Bell protocol speeds - 300bps
So a GPL program and they "think"??? Well that's a HEEEELLLLL!
Can't you see? Some of the biggest market players. Some of the biggest makers of sound algorithms. Some of the biggest sound labs. Some of the most well known investigators. And they "THINK"????
Well is that SO hard to dig on a few hundreds of kilobytes of Open Source code? Is that SOOOO HAAAARD to understand a GPL program? Hey, maybe the code was written such way that it is hard to understand? Let's see...
OH MY! Look AT THOSE LINES!!! How they are ordered!!! It's like if someone cared for alignment. Naaa, that's to create confusion. So the code would look like clear and perfect... Like the commies. Everything looks good, all people smiles, but in that damn corner. Oh in that DAMN corner. They are there trying to take over the world. These damn rebelious bastards. Naaa there is soemthing hidden here. It looks too good to be true...
And what about those comments?!!! Don't you see? One comment here. Another there. Clear confusion! "first things first. Make sure encode is ready." "currently lazy. Short block dispatches to 0, long to 1". Pure nonsense! Where is the Developer's Guide? I wanna see the specs in three veluum volumes like in every good corporation! With resumes, marketing analysis, financial projections, accounting and a short explanation what the Hell is this for!..
And how about these variables??? "vorbis_info", "ogg_pack_write". What is a vorbis? And how do you pack a ogg? Isn't this taking people into confusion? Yeah that's it! They are clearly HIDING something. Maybe the patent "on how to sing with your lips"? Yeah probably that one. It can't be that these guys made a new fresh algorithm and get us with our pants on. There must be something hidden behind these orgs and vogues...
And this matters so much? Maybe oggvorbis will not go too far on what concerns hardware, if no one will support it. However there are three points you're missing:
Going "nowhere" is too heavy of a statement. Even today mp3 is mostly used through software tools. Besides the quality of algorithm has greatly improved. It produces files a little fatter than mp3 but with an envious quality.
Almost a couple of years ago mp3 was also going nowhere. There was not hardware support and there was a fear that all these big associations, corporations and mobs would eat alive anyone who dared to produce such hardware. Well, these same groups are still trying to eat alive someone but also trying to sell mp3s now...
When mp3 was outlaw, there were lots of expectations that someone would create a "mp3 killer". This was due to several technical and strategical reasons for such. Most expected that the "Industry" would finally get the "ideal packer" that would not only protect their egoistic copyright demands but also produce better quality than mp3. Well, a system that is starting to produce better sound quality is here. So what's the problem? That does not protect awkward copyright demands? Well, once Spain also wanted all America for itself. For some reason portuguese ended with more than half of South America and english with nearly all North. And in the end Spain lost even its own latinos... such egoistic ownerships have always a tendency to end quite badly...
All that Thomson is doing is laying the groundwork for the abandonment of perceptual encoding. With network speeds improving and storage prices falling, lossless compression schemes like Shorten will inevitably replace lossy compression schemes like jpg and ogg.
.shn files.
Shorten achieves 2:1 lossless compression on audio files. MP3 offers 10:1 lossy compression. Already people are distributing lossless audio files as
If Thomson succeeds in creating a legal cloud around any and all perceptual encoding schemes, this may be the "push" required for the industry to completely abandon lossy compression in favor of unpatented, lossless 2:1 compression.
A year or two down the road, if someone surfaces with a patent on Shorten's 2:1 lossless compression, the net will undoubtedly be able to easily handle uncompressed 1:1 lossless audio.
In short, MP3s are near obsolete, and nothing will force them into the dustbin of history faster than the fear of lawsuits.
(And please, let's not delude ourselves that the mythical Open Source Community will magically step in and finish the project: enthusiasm and spirit are no replacement for in-depth knowledge of signal processing.)
Actually, some of us do have in-depth knowledge of signal processing. I've been playing with my own CODEC projects in my (near-mythical) free time.
If you're falling for the sort of "health-food store" quackery that says that homeopathic remedies can do anything for you, then you ought to read some Carl Hempel, and think about why "these statements have not been evaluated by the FDA".
What's your issue with corporate influence on OSS? I'm the first to criticize corporations, but I fail to see what's so bad here.
"How many people's mothers and bosses have even heard of "Mozilla"?"
Who cares? Mozilla still exists and will continue to exist, with or without Netscape 6. All that NS has changed is the number of programmers and the amount of money available to the project. mozilla.org will continue to operate, regardless. Likewise, I'm a happy consumer of Helix Gnome. Although the Gnome Foundation's effects remain to be seen, Helix has improved Gnome considerably in features, ease of use and stability.
Methinks you're trying to sound the alarm when there isn't actually anything to be upset about yet. If some corporate "benefactor" starts to actually meddle and censor, then I'll be worried, but I think as long as it's open, it's hard for a project to get corrupted.
Switch the . and the @ to email me.
You sir have just sold me a HipZip. I've been waiting for that, and I'm going to buy one now.
-------
Vidi, Vici, Veni
This is a quote from the VP. He, like most of us here, has no clue how vorbis works. He probably also has no idea how MP3 works, either. All he knows is that his company licenses it and that Vorbis is a potential competitor. Now, there can certainly be trivial lawsuits, but in order to come up with those, one of their lawyers is going to have to find a patent that Vorbis is actually violating, or at least one that can be violated given a stretch of the imagination. Monty, Jack, et al have been very careful about reading the patents and are quite confident that they're not violating any of them (they haven't responded to the messages about this article on the vorbis mailing list; hopefully they're more concerned with their own future livlihood). Somehow I trust the guys who wrote the code and read the patents in a defensive mindframe than the VP of the company that owns rights to the MP3 patents and probably doesn't understand them.
Considering the battle between Epson, HP, Cannon, and others for the home printer market, trying to charge for an updated driver is, like I said, nuts.
First of all, relatively few people update the software that came with their computers. They are scared to. The revenue stream from driver upgrades would be negligable; it'd probably cost more to set up the system to process the payments than the payments actually bring in.
Secondly, I can buy an Apollo (really a relabeled HP) inkjet at my local _grocery store_ for $50. They're getting to the point where they are nearly at the disposable price range (for those who can afford computers in the first place). The money is in the ink cartridges, anyway. Nickel and diming people on the printer driver would just generate ill will and virtually no revenue.
Of course, I'm assuming that HP is run by rational people. This assumption isn't always true.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
I am not a lawyer, but I think it may be useful to document the economic damages of Thomson's attempts at fear, uncertainty and doubt for possible counter-litigation if they want to play "hard ball" as the article says.
If you are working on a product or project which might include Ogg Vorbis and you receive any negative feedback from customers, resellers, partners, about FUD over statements by Henri Linde and other Thomson representatives or you can document internal costs or lost opportunities within your business, we should document it in some publicly accessible central place (so the data can be replicated by many independent servers).
For example, we are considering including Ogg Vorbis in our Linux distribution. I personally think it might increase sales by about 100,000 units per year of physical media, on which we might make $10 per copy, but only in the absense of Thomson's fear uncertainty and doubt campaign. So, that's about a million dollars per year of damages, although, obviously, these numbers are likely to change with market research.
If somebody wants to establish a central point for submitting and disseminating this type of data, please post a follow up here. In the meantime, it would be helpful for others to post their estimates as follow-ups here.
Okay. I didn't realize that (and I obviously didn't take the time to check).
I still propose though.. what about things that are purely non-corporate OSS projects? Is there not a point where there is nobody to sue?
Javascript, isn't that ECMA 262 in open source parlance?
:)
Dave
I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
Likewise, I don't see /. charging being even remotely feasible. Them selling our link histories? Yeah, probably. Probably do the referrers too.
:)
Dave
I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
Ogg Vorbis does NOT use Wavelets, it uses MDCT (like MP3, although it empoys it differently from MP3).
Ogg Vorbis has plans to incorporate Wavelet processing at a future date, but doesn't currently.
"It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
notice how many people *are* using png? not a lot...
I am, at least for the titles on my, erm, original MP3 page. Irony abounds.
Copyright should be 20 yrs.--long enough to make money, long enough for a work to no longer be current (and thus valuable), but short enough that it may actually do some good.
1. In apparatus of the type for encoding a signal by means of spectral analysis of overlapping time segments of such signal, and including apparatus for processing respective said time segments according to a window function for imparting a characteristic amplitude function to said respective time segments prior to such analysis of said signal, an improvement comprising:
"In an apparatus of the type for..." means that this paragraph describes the state of the art. "an improvement comprising:" means that the following paragraphs describe something new.
The state of the art in this case means breaking the sampled signal into blocks and doing an FFT or something similar to get its frequencies. The "overlapping windows" bit refers to the fact that sudden changes between blocks are audible, so you have the blocks overlap and fade one into the next gradually.
means for detecting occurrences of instantaneous frequency changes in said signal exceeding a predetermined frequency change, and generating control signals indicating occurrences of said frequency changes; and
In other words, detecting something that the existing system doesn't code for well. The word "means" here means a mechanism or system or something like that. Its the same sense as in the phrase "by any means possible".
means, responsive to said control signals, for adaptively providing said window functions such that respective time segments of signal which exhibit said instantaneous frequency changes are subjected to a significantly narrowed window function relative to window functions applied to time segments of signal which do not exhibit said instantaneous frequency changes, and wherein window functions of overlapping time segments overlap.
When we detect this problem within one of the data blocks ("windows"), we reduce the block size to compensate.
So, any audio codec which uses the overlapping window system, detects sudden frequency shifts and reduces the window size to compensate will infringe on Claim 1 of this patent. If there is any published work using this system which predates this patent then the claim won't hold up.
If you decide that this claim would hold up then you can try to evade it, perhaps by:
Mind you, I'm not any kind of lawyer. But computer programmers, of all people, should be able to handle dense complicated documents written in strange languages.
Paul.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
The killer isn't the player charge. The paperwork and hassles involved in the licencing is what will really cause manufacturers to move to OGG. That, and the freedom to modify it. That's why the Tivo runs on Linux. It isn't as if Microsoft hasn't been trying to get into that market for years. But why licence something if you can download and use for free? Any hassles with the GPL are barely noticable compared to working out a licencing agreement with Fraunhoffer and Thompson.
"How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
I talked to several different hardware manufacturers at the most recent CEDIA show. Every single one of the engineers, executives and salespeople I talked to was very interested in OGG Vorbis. They have no particular love of Thomsom or Fraunhoffer. A free encoder and decoder means they can sell their product for less and get a larger share of the market, make more money and buy their baby a new pair of shoes!
I'll be spending an equal amount of time at the COnsumer Electronics Show doing the same thing. I might even make business cards with a description of the Vorbis project and URLs. As soon as the code is optimized, it will appear in commercial products. It doesn't even have to sound better than MP3, just as good as MP3.
The big product at this year's CES will be home audio jukeboxes. Virtually every one of these will be running some version of GNU/Linux. Why? Because it's free...and you can get loads of programmers practically begging you to work on the project. The only thing keeping the price from dropping and getting it into homes is the MP3 licencing issue. That is delt with via Vorbis.
We'll see MP3 jukeboxes with 9 gig IDE drives designed to hook up to your home network in the $399 price range if they choose to go the Linux/Vorbis route.
"How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
Proposed open patent license terms: This patent covers the following technology: ---fill in the blank.-- A worldwide, perpetual, royalty free license is available to this technology. However, any product incorporating this techology must --fill in the blank.--
The alternative, and somewhat cheaper, solution is to not file for a patent, but file a Statutory Invention Registration. This is basically a mechanism that publishes a patent application, without awarding patent rights.
The third, and even cheaper, solution is to publish the invention, with a declaration that the technology is not now, nor will it be patented. This means that no one else can patent the technology (since this is proof of your invention, and the US is a first to invent country).
There ya go, all yours.
Thalia
This does not constitute legal advice, so don't even think it.
Javascript isn't Sun technology. It's a Netscape creation, originally named Livescript but was renamed to javascript before release because of some type of marketing partnership with Sun. Aside from it's ability to control Java apps javascript has nothing to do with Java, they are completely seperate products.
"Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" - Kurt Vonnegut
Interesting - anybody know if anything similar would apply in the EU (Maybe Germany in particular)?
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Sure, and microsoft probably payed them for a license, whether they really needed to or not. In the long run it would have been better just to pay off patent holders... or even better... buy them out
treke
I was considering Microsoft there, and these are strategies they have used before.
treke
This is a bluff. Do what you do in Poker: CALL.
"If you think we are infringing, here's our legal address. Send the process server over and give us the papers, and we will see you in court. Otherwise, you will immediately and publicly retract what you've said, or we shall bring charges of unfair restraint of trade against you."
Can any of the noted attourneys in the audience comment on this strategy? <Paging Dr. Hawk, Dr. Hawk to the blue courtesy phone >
www.eFax.com are spammers
Is it really possible to stop MP3? Software and source code exists on every platform there is. Free source gives it an infinite lifetime. Who cares if Fraunhofer won't license it? I can go download the LAME source and make my own. I can compile it, upload it to my friends, burn CDs... I can even make a car MP3 player without their licenses.
Why should I worry? Am I missing something? If so, please reply to this and tell me.
I would think an open letter to them would be much better, get /. to post it, see about salon, wired, anyone who will carry it. Something very politely worded, along the lines of "We think you made that statement in error, would you please let us know exactly what portions of the program (source available) that are infringing? After all, we're reasonable people who would never dream of infringin on anyone elses IP and would be happy to correct anything we find doing just that..."
They pulled their heads out of their asses long enough to come up with this tripe for the sake of a little FUDmongering. Let's make them walk away with ogg* on their faces.
*Oh dear, that was bad. Terribly sorry.
First off, you don't need to prove your smart -or- not. secoundly i know how huffman encoding works. thirdy, where did you get the idea i thought huffman encodeing was patented? the patent seems to say that "huffman encoding on DCT transforms". which means the patent applies to applying the huffman encoding to the output after the DCT transform. (discret cusion transform) BITS->QUANT->DCT->HUFF is how JPEG, MPEG, MP3 and pretty much all media lossy compressions work. it just seems silly they could patent the DCT->HUFF part of it. -Jon
this is my sig.
I hope prior art is the keyword. If anyone can show prior art of the technologies Fraunhofer holds patent over, we might be able to save 50 cents on various mp3 players.
I mean - this is all mathematics. Surely, someone must have done this before Fraunhofer?
I haven't seen the specs, but isn't the mp3 technology mathematically similar to the JPEG technology?
Stop the brainwash
For example, Thompson (RCA) was going to sell a TiVo box at RadioShack this Xmas season. They cancelled production when Gemstar threatened to cut off ties with Thompson because Gemstar is suing TiVo over a patent for putting a TV schedule in a grid. (I am not making this up. http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=13657926 )
Lawsuits and Patents are corporate weapons, not about justice.
Or am I missing something?
Is it not simply the U.S. Patent system that is the problem here, and if so why do people continue to let the work they love be subjected to it? I can understand how International law would probably prevent the ogg boys successfully moving to Europe to avoid legal challenges, but could U.S. Patents have any impact on a project developed in Europe (other than the lawsuits that could fly over the distribution of the technology in the U.S., but if it is in a non-US section of the software mirrors and hence never held on a U.S. subjected server.....)?
Is it simply a case that despite the shit it causes, coders just aren't willing to leave th U.S. for any length of time? If so, perhaps its time the anti-european software patents crew along with the EFF etc to setup a nice new facility that coders can ask for permission to use to develop work in a patent free environment. Post to a website telling it what you want to do and why you need to get out of the U.S. If you get enough votes/are deemed worthy enough ... you get a ticket and a workplace (maybe even a subsistance grant) with individuals to help and distract you. The Free Software Reseach Laboratory
Bottom line, if Alan Cox (he does live in England doesn't he?) added mp3 technology to the kernel, could he be touched (if he sourced all code from non-US contaminated sources or wrote it himself)?
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
Really. Are you aware that Ogg Vorbis uses wavelet compression methods while MP3 still uses the fourier transforms only?
If no one owns the copyright, then it's no longer covered by the GPL, and people are free to incorporate it into whatever commercial products they like. And companies can still sue whoever distributes it, as with DeCSS.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
These clauses simply don't apply if you've got enough money to march into court with a pack of lawyers and a balance sheet that is the envy of most third world countries.
You might be able to stop Ma Barker from suing you for trampling her petunias using this clause - but big greasy corporate lawyers? Ha.
--
Eric Scheirer doesn't work for Fraunhofer, he works for Forrester Research.
Which does not necessarily apply. Yes, releasing something as GPL doesn't guarantee people will give you free development, good will, etc. But there are no guarantees in business in general. There are no guarantees people will buy a proprietary software package, etc.
Second, the GPL gives certain rights in exchange for you granting some rights back.
It would be naive if the GPL only pleaded with its reader. However, it makes a legal demand, you can NOT do certain things without permission, which is only granted if you do certain other things.
It's more like if you don't do something for me, I won't do something for you (i.e. give you a license). And it has the force of copyright law to back it up. Copyright law allows almost any restrictions to be made by the copyright holder. The only things not allowed would be things such as illegal discrimination against a protected class, restrictions designed to further criminal activity (e.g. encryption licensed for all but police), and anything similarly illegal or against public policy. Any lawyers care to comment?
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Any lawyers (real lawyers and "armchair" lawyers ;) care to speculate if Thomson, et al could end up being liable for damages to Xiphophorous at some point?
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
RMS can be a communist for all it matters. That doesn't mean there are no reasons for capitalist companies, etc to be interested in the GPL. Sometimes self-interest does coincide with public interest. Alas not always, but sometimes.
The GPL says do something good for the community, and the community will do something good for you. SOunds pretty close to an economic transaction...
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
> Actually, Jeff Merkey [...] apparently is also a lawyer
This explains that. (For more information, check some of the Jeff posts on the kernel list. In my book, this guy is very very close beeing an asshole).
Cheers,
--fred
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
6,141,794 System and method for synchronizing access to shared variables in a virtual machine in a digital computer system
6,026,485 Instruction folding for a stack-based machine
5,899,990 Java -to-Database Connectivity Server Maybe it does not make sense right now, but the upgrades to your palm are nolonger free
- subsolar
If I say in an interview "I think it is likely Ektanoor is a criminal" then I've commited libel unless I can make a case for that.
Libel is disparagement of a person's reputation with commercial consequences. You can't libel a company, only individuals. I think what this whole stupid thread is trying to understand is the notion of trademark tarnishment. Strike 1.
Infringing a patent is a criminal act.
Only under exceptional circumstances will an intellectual property violation be a crime. For instance, willful copyright infringement for commercial gain (e.g., bootlegging). Strike 2.
Actually, I should have said that it's a crime in the common meaning of the word. The only way you can go to jail is if you refused to pay the fine or whatever. AFAIK, IANAL.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but the law steps in when that opinion is framed or stated in certain ways. It is true that a judge might require that a retraction is issued rather than a fine, if s/he feels that the opinion is not forcefully put.
However, although IANAL, I would say that making a statement in an interview which will be read by other members of the industry which makes activities such as raising funding harder for OV is not something which will automatically be taken lightly. It's not like he was down the pub, got drunk, and mouthed off in front of someone who happened to be a reporter. These words were spoken in the knowledge that they would see print in a medium where it is reasonable to believe they would damage OV's reputation and/or ability to continue their business, which in turn could quite easily constitute material damage.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Are Thomson part of SGS Thomson, which abbreviated itself to ST. SGS Thomson claimed they were a French company when I was reading their company literature, shortly before I turned both their job offers down. Glad I did now.
FatPhil
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
"If you're going to go into a marketplace where people play hardball, that's what hardball looks like," Scheirer warned
What an arogent bastard.
What this corporatist pion dosnt realize is that Ogg is both libre and gratis it is neither a product for sale - nor a competitor in the 'marketplace'. I dont think these idiots see this coming - free software is going to render there profiteering scheems moot. MP3s will be kept as 'free as they are now' or OGG will replace it. Citizens of the planet are getting wise to the plans of these types...
Where is the PayPal site I can send a donation?
The Revolution will be Webcast.
Perhaps I've missed something here.... Ogg Vorbis isn't GPLed is it? It's public domain? The software developed by the Ogg Vorbis project is LGPLed, so if you want to use the libraries, it's relevant, but the format itself if public domain, you can use it anyway you like.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
them: You are very good at chess. Therefore, you must be cheating.
us: What proof do you have that I'm cheating?
them: You are very good, therefore you MUST be cheating.
Keeping
Ogg has much bigger goals than DeCSS. Ogg wants to be an open standard that would allow a free implementation. To be the standard, that has to include hardware implementations and closed source implementations by scared, law abiding corporations.
Development would also slow down. Legitimate corporations don't want to support an illegal product that they can't use. Open and funded, development goes much faster than it does when it has to be done underground.
If you are modding me down because you disagree with me, use the "Flamebait" category, not the "Troll" one.
If I offended you ^^
Anyway, reading the patent, doesn't mp3 do some perceptual encoding magic between the DCT and HUFF processes, to actually throw away non-audible data?
Geek dating!
GPL Deconstructed
I don't think Huffman coding is itself patented, as that is a statistical based compression algorithm, and in simple terms, the more often a 'word' appears, the smaller the number of bits is used to represent it;
For the readers unaware of Huffman coding:
If 'CompletELY' appeared 51% of the time in a document, then it would get the code '1'
Everything else would start with a '0'
'0100'
'0101'
'0110'
'0111'
'001'
'000'
etc. It would be proportioned based on percentage appearance.
Anyway, unless I am of course mistaken, the MP3 patent in question is the distribution of the data, the specific encoding table, and not the process of encoding, decoding, or storage, or whatnot. Huffman is used in a *lot* of places where mp3 don't tread.
But I could be wrong ^^
Geek dating!
GPL Deconstructed
That page is more disgusting than goatse.cx.
---
Bob Fucking Costas. Does anyone else hate that motherfucker?
Unfortunately, this seems to be symptomatic and a lot of open source development is permeated by conservatism that would make a stodgy company proud. Ogg-Vorbis is still based on decades old ideas about signal processing, the Linux kernel is still monolithically written in C like kernels were in the 1970s, and Gnome and KDE have barely progressed into the 1980s when it comes to GUI technologies.
Besides having a lot of upside potential (i.e., it may work better in the long run), going with newer, less proven ideas has the advantage that an open source effort has a much better chance of not treading on a well-patented path already. So, be adventuresome when you embark on your next open source project. Don't be content with just doing a slightly better job at something that has been around for a few years.
And if you are developing a new audio coder in particular, get out of the engineering straightjacket. Look at some new ideas in neural networks and pattern recognition and come up with something different from all the other audio coders in the market. Who knows, you may not just satisfy an open source need but actually contribute to the state of the art.
If by "success" you mean "used and enjoyed by other OSS enthsiasts", then of course none at all.
If, however, by success you mean "displaces mp3 as the dominant internet music encoding standard and withstands a barrage of patent-infringement lawsuits from a panoply of huge corporate interests", which were pretty much the stated goals of the OggVorbis project, then the answer is: pretty goddamn critical. The former requires some concentrated, full-time attention of the kind of coders who don't grow on trees. The latter is going to require some very, very expensive lawyers. Both will require some significant cash investment. Got a million or two dollars to spare?
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
The other is effectivel that OV version 2 is created. But who's to say that they won't do the same with it? This is not justice we are talking about, it's the law, and the man with the money is the man who can bend it to his will.
Remember, nobody would remember the good samaritan if he'd only had good intentions; he had money, too.
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
There is no
Quick check -- do you believe the U.S. or the Netherlands is more corporatist?
If you answered the U.S., please take the time to read a book on political science so you don't abuse the term "corporatism" the way Katz does. The U.S. is one of the least corporatist developed nations on Earth. If you prefer the Netherlands' socioeconomic system to that of the U.S., your boogeyman is free-market capitalism, not corporatism.
If you were actually referring to the anticaptialists who wish to use government regualtions and government-union-corporate consultation to insulate big companies from disruptive market forces, then I apologize for questioning your use of "corporatists".
There's no "we" in team, only "me"
Any company that makes an investment in Ogg is going to want to get something in return, and they're going to want more than just a freely available audio compression format. They're going to want control.
This isn't just some idle prediction. This sort of thing has happened before, and it's happening right now with other Open Source projects. Look at Mozilla. Netscape/AOL invested their codebase, and their staff programmers in an open source project, and now that it's just about ready for prime time, AOL forks the code, and retakes control of the Nescape browser, which is the only browser that the mainstream public is likely to use. How many people's mothers and bosses have even heard of "Mozilla"?
And look at GNOME. What started out as a response to the concern that KDE wasn't free enough, is rapidly turning corporate, with strategic alliances with other big business interests under the guise of the "Gnome Foundation", and the rebranding to the trademarked "Helix Gnome".
Realize, people, that unless we act to keep our Free Software free of commercial control, it will be Free in name only.
--
The most valuable commodity I know of is information. - Michael Douglas as Gordon Gekko, Wall Street
Has anyone given thought to "open" patents? The next time someone in the open community has something novel - try to get funding to patent the idea and grant patent lisences to the open source community. Yes, I'm sure I'm oversimplifying things a bit, but that's what the lawyers are for... I'm just part of the freaky-idea group. Would there be any merit to having such "open" patents? And please, no "moralistic" counter-arguments as to why this should not be - patents are not a moral issue - business practices behind the patents are.
For those of you who have not seen my past comments on the issue, I work in a heavily patented environment, outside the "tech" realm (in actuality, I work in the pharma/bio-tech/drug delivery realm - by far older (see pharma) and much more patent heavy (see all three I listed) than compu-tech). I have the misfortune of seeing patents every day - many of them are trivial, many of them are vague.
So, anyway... open patents? Thoughts? Comments? Irate blatherings?
Hi! This is the Sig, blatantly attached to the end of this comment.
I had mentioned this in a reply to another post, but I want to start a new thread on this one... Perhaps it's time to make a stand here. What do we have here? IMHO, we have a corporation (two, actually) that's apparently decided to play hardball, never mind whether or not they have a legal leg to stand on. Notice that this "issue" didn't come up until CMGI withdrew its support for Ogg Vorbis, probably because CMGI could have coughed up the cash to mount a defense, whereas the developers probably can't. So Thomson is going to try to steamroll over a potential competitor. Are there legitimate patents on audio compression technology that Ogg Vorbis is violating? Possibly, but I don't think that's Thomson's intent. They're out to crush a competitor that they see as vulnerable now and a potential threat later. Even if the applicable patents could cover this area, are they too broad? Once again, we don't really know, but we aren't going to learn anything if Ogg Vorbis is forced to roll over and die. IMHO, we need a very public, very nasty, very enlightening fight here, if Thomson is willing to oblige. Why? Because we'd better define how patents and intellectual property are going to be applied in the coming decades. I'm not saying who's right or wrong, but we'd better dtart defining some boundaries whiel there's something left to defend. Get the debate off of Slashdot and out into the mainstream. There are lots of ways to do that, and I'll leave it to others to define exactly how, but we need to make more people begin to think about what role patents and IP are playing in new technologies, such as computers and the Internet. I will pose this question: If the current interpretation of patents was in use about 100 years ago, would one company have been able to patent automobiles? If it was in effect 50,000 years ago, would someone have been able to patent fire? What about the wheel? I can see it now. "A device for the smooth transport of passangers and cargo across the surface of the earth by means of rounded edges and continuous motion almong the ground."
Fraunhofer owns patents on damn near everything .ogg hits them in the pocket, expect litigation.
sound related. Everything they do is cross patented. It's a research lab. This is how they
make money. They're extremely good at it. If
Here's a list of their patents pertaining to MP3.
http://mp3licensing.com/patents.html
Another factor is that a suit by Thompson will hardly appear as an act of good faith to a judge. If Thompson can download and examine the source code, they can hardly claim ignorance when they lose the suit.
Make me aerodynamic in the evening air
Try more like 2-6.00 US dollars a copy of any shipping software product.
Plus the 10k US yearly minimum.
It's quite a racket they have going with mp3. They did a good job pulling the wool over most people's eyes.
The copper bosses killed you, Joe. 'I never died', said he.
In this case, if you abandon your principles, survival becomes irrelevant. What does survival in this context mean?
Y'know, I've always wanted to play those clock-speed dependent 286 games again.
But seriously, Ogg's been Ogged. Frauenhofer is making a kamikaze attack without regard to future repercussions. The irony is wonderful.
I forsee the rattling will continue. The Ogg Vorbis format will exit beta and enter into the Internet's various mirroring services and freenet-style anti-censorship services, the company Xiph will get sued out of existance, the CODEC will survive, plugins for Xamp and Winamp will abound, business as usual will continue. Anyone remember why we should be using PNGs instead of GIFs?? right. do you? same deal.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
For example, Apple has completely re-written Display Postscript and created Quartz to be Adobe-free (to avoid paying licencing fees) for Mac OS X. No patent infringement there. Furthermore, there have been third-party GPL'd Postscript interpreters for years; maybe a decade at this point. The other file format examples that you provide are equally impossible.
Sun doesn't have anything to do with JavaScript; you'd think that /.ers could figure that out after 5 years. Nothing in Java is patentable (it's a language and a spec for a class library), so submarine patents are unlikely. There are multiple sources for JVMs (both Sun and IBM make JVMs for Win32 and Linux), so if Sun starts to charge, people will stop using it.
HP charging for it's printer drivers (apart from the cost of the printer) is crazy. What would you do with a printer without a printer driver?
-jon
Remember Amalek.
As the project itself is not under the umbrella of any corporation, who exactly is being sued? The visible maintainers/authors? Who says it can't just be picked up by anyone else?
Can't anyone pick up where it left off? How can you charge a piece of information with a crime?
Is this not a way in which OSS can almost circumvent the system by simply not being part of it? The software will exists as it's own entity, and simply be serviced by whoever wants to work with it.
Did Microsoft license Fraunhofer / Thompson's patents when they created their Windows Media (.wma) format?
.ogg files disappear.
If so, Microsoft would have another reason to be happy to see
But if not, that's proof that it is possible to build a decent encoder without the patents. At least if you have barns full of money and don't need to worry about nasty legal threats.
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
"HTML needs a rant tag" - Alan Cox
It's actually quite likely that Vorbis infringes on several of Fraunhoffer/Thompson's patents (now, whether you agree with the patents or not is a seperate issue).
The fact is that Fraunhoffer has pattent MANY different technologies used in perceptual encoding. Basically everything in MP3 and AAC is covered by strong patents. They even have many patents on other perceptual coding techniques not used in those formats.
One of the biggest impediments to commercial development of competitors to MP3 has been the Fraunhoffer patent collection - which makes it difficult to do any type of perceptual encoding without infringment. Pretty much the only other companies that can get away with it are people like Lucent (w/ PAC/ePAC) that also have their share of perceptual audio coding licenses that they can cross-license w/ Fraunhoffer so they don't sue each other into oblivion.
The chances that the Vorbis guys have discovered some completely revolutionary method of encoding that doesn't infringe on any of these patents is unfortunately very slim.
Of course, I wouldn't expect to see Thompson do anything about this until it becomes a real threat. No reason to waste money on lawyers otherwise.
>Isn't there a law against harassing suits? If not, there should be...
I think we should harass suits more often.
Ask me if I've been required to disclose any crypto keys.
Oh, erm, actually I was only talking to the folks that seemed ready to flee if MPEG said "boo". Sort of a "stop running, good, now breathe deeply, yes, good" in calm soothing tones.
Now if you're pissed and feel like getting a few hundred developers to march on Thomson headquarters with flaming torches (maybe we could get the Large Hot Pipe Organ to play) to make our opinions known (loudly, spectacularly, but peacefully), I'll volunteer right now for propane torch duty so long as someone volunteers crash space for the sleepover!
Monty
.
I agree, some are a stretch. But some are exactly what I'm talking about:
Although I use postscript and pdf all the time, I worry a little. I realize that they've been so useful to me because Adobe has published the formats and allowed implementations to thrive. They could pull a Unisys, though.
And MSFT's .doc format? Just Say No.
Whenever you depend upon something that you use by permission, not by right, you are creating a dependency that may cost you in the future.
SteveMaking groundless statements in order to sabotage a company's prospects is a serious crime, at least in the UK, and the fines are unlimited. Since the code is open the CEO or whoever it was has no defense: he should have known whether the patents were infringed or not before opening his mouth.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
This will be a real-world test of GPL and the power of the internet.
You are right that the OV people have no resources, money, or lawyers, but the OV people aren't critical either. OV can live and thrive *without* the OV people.
So what can happen? Thompson stifles the top 10 developers? 100? 1000? Will they target everyone who's downloaded the code?
Lets say the top 10 developers are sued to, essentially death. That doesn't mean they lose; OV could be found non-infringing. At which point *any* developer could pick up the pieces and continue.
If it is found infringing, well, that's all folks. The code was infringing... Fix, and release again, I guess.
A commercial big daddy will help it nothing in proving the code is not infringing, I don't think. It can only provide resources. In the end, I hope OV survives, and that we have a better solution, that the GPL reigns powerful, and Thomson gets egg on their face.
Geek dating!
GPL Deconstructed
They very probably do. Of course, that's not to say that Ogg V does use mp3 technology, but it is certainly possible that it has been influenced by it.
What we are looking at now is a commercial company deciding to go after a defenseless GPL project. How will Ogg V survive? They don't have any resources or money or lawyers, do they? In the real world, that's what it takes to survive, and Thompson's know it.
Perhaps it would be good for Ogg V to get a commercial 'Big Daddy' that will defend it under the GPL.
But I fear that would be impossible. They would only defend it if they owned it, of course, or if they had some power over it.
If Ogg V is reliscensed under a more commercially friendly license, such as MozPL, It may survive.
What do you want more? Your principles or Survival? That is what it comes down to, I fear.
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
There is no
There is a positive. At this point, while the Open Source community is quite supportive of this technology, the majority of the world is still fixated on MP3.
Likely, the lawsuit will be dismissed, or at least won by Ogg Vorbis, but the damage to MP3 will be that Ogg Vorbis will suddenly be well known to people who aren't neccessarily going to hear about it in the community.
It's free advertising via a nuisance lawsuit... sounds like a case of "Any publicity is good publicity to me." (Excuse the cliche)
----------------- "I have a bone to pick, and a few to break." - Refused -------------------
Ogg can't chain me to my computer or even to a PDA and expect to thrive. Ogg should spend some time bringing their codec to the typical embedded A/V processors found in the new generation of cheap OEM DVD and CD chipsets for consumer electronics (like the ESS VideoDrive 4308 and 4318, found in most of the DVD/VCD/MP3 combo players)
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
I think the point was not "being GPL will give it some kind of special legal protection" but "if they were competent, and they thought it was infringing, they'd just download the source and figure it out themselves." Clearly, being GPL doesn't mean much- the license itself has not even been significantly tested in court. But it does lend a layer of transparency to the project that makes these types of threats both more irritating in their bluster and arrogance and more pathetic in their ignorance.
~luge
IAAL,BIANLY
"This is what hardball is like" is what their representative said. Essentially, it's plutocracy as normal.
The Claims are a series of mostly concentric circles. The outer ones are going to be very broad and will almost always have prior art against them. Inner ones will be progressively more specific. So the first thing is to look at the published state of the art before the patents were applied for and decide which of the Claims are actually real. Then you can look at Ogg/Vorbis and see if any of those Claims cover their work.
Paul.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
Troll. Your mama would spank you.
I was never a VQF developer. One of my professors in Japan, Sadoaki Furui, is head of NTT Human Interfaces lab, which developed the original VQF, then called TwinVQ. The fact that we knew each other was the limit of the overlap (and we met exactly because we both worked in compression).
Any technical commonality (there is some) is coincidental. Both TwinVQ and Vorbis draw more from speech encoding technology than mp3 does.
(Incidentally, VQF has noise problems because of the way the lossy/nonuniform vector quantization interleaves MDCT scalars. Vorbis works differently).
Vorbis was never a 'limited hack of VQF'. Please, *do* go inspect the original CVS snapshots as well as the previous generations of Xiph.org codecs, Squish, '95' and Stormbringer, all of which predate TwinVQ.
But, eh, I just fell for arguing eith a fool. Now I feel all dirty.
Monty
Of course, since patents now last 17 years, and are awarded for things that could never have been protected by being trade secrets (One-click, anyone?), or for that matter even required R&D, the situation is ridiculous.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
I'm not totally happy with these items--none seem as obvious as the mp3/.gif examples. Oh well, it goes to show that there is an important difference between free and Free.
So let me get this straight. We have patents so people won't use existing technology, and instead will have incentive to create new solutions to problems. Now patents are used to make sure new technologies DON'T appear. When did this huge disconnect come about?
You have to wonder if either the submitter or the editors actually read this article.
Sure, Thompson Multimedia is doing some entirely predictable sabre-rattling. Anybody who didn't see that coming a mile off should see an optometrist.
The important thing mentioned in there is that CMGI has pulled the plug on Vorbis development. That's a far more important, and ominous development. Corporate backing was allowing progress to be made very quickly on Vorbis, and will be critical when the inevitable patent infringement suit comes. If someone else with deep pockets doesn't step in soon, we can just resign ourselves to paying Frauenhoffer's license fees for the forseeable future.
(And please, let's not delude ourselves that the mythical Open Source Community will magically step in and finish the project: enthusiasm and spirit are no replacement for in-depth knowledge of signal processing.)
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
> It's actually quite likely that Vorbis infringes on several of Fraunhoffer/Thompson's patents
Actually, no. Monty, Xiphophorus, and iCast did their homework, and also hired some clueful technology IP lawyers to look things over, some of whom I've met -- these guys are sharp, and they grok psychoacoustics.
Have you read the actual patents? If you work out exactly what is being claimed, FhG doesn't actually own the farm, as I've heard it told.
Yeah, I was skeptical too, but I've been convinced.
Note, also, this: FhG has never actually claimed any infringement by Vorbis. FhG's lawyers could certainly read the source if they wanted to know.
Or maybe they have a patent on "A method of compressing audio to preserve quality but reduce space usage.
Well according to this patent, obtained by Thompson for his "invention", that may be exactly what they claim. The patent would seem to cover any audio compression method that converts from time domain to frequency domain, does quantization, then entropy coding.
The other Fraunhofer patent is at least a bit more focused, and specifies a breakdown into frequency groups, followed by quantization, then compression. The Ogg Vorbis scheme avoids the first stage of prefiltering into smaller frequency bands, and does the transform in one feel swoop. This requires more work for the transform, but arguably gives better results.
In short, the first patent I mentioned seems difficult to defend against, unless it can be shown to be overly broad or invalid. The second is exactly what Ogg Vorbis was avoiding.
"It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
From this url given elsewhere by another poster, I looked up all the patents that Thomson Multimedia and Fraunhofer have in the US (apparently some weren't approved in US but in other countries). With all the hub-ub about overbroad/silly patents I thought I could go read some in more detail. The list of patten numbers is:
- 5,742,735
- 5,455,833
- 5,579,430
- 5,559,834
- 5,703,999
- 5,706,309
- 5,736,943
- 5,701,346
- 4,942,607
- 5,214,742
- 5,227,990
- 5,384,811
- 5,321,729
- 4,821,260
(You can look up any of them at the patent office. Just enter all the numbers in the search field separated by spaces.)Some interesting things I noted:
- Although the invention has been described and illustrated in detail, it is to be clearly understood that the same is by way of illustration and example, and is not to be taken by way of limitation. The spirit and scope of the present invention are to be limited only by the terms of the appended claims.
Since most of the patents I found did not specify that the encoded signal had to be audio, this seems like they have a patent on any use of whatever their algorithms are trying to do (which I found not very clear...) In other words, it is almost like somebody patented a specific hash table function (I'm sure someone has) and then patented it specifically for application X, but didn't rule out the possibility of "owning" it in any application that uses hash functions.All of the above must be taken with at grain of salt because the legal-ese in the patents (especially the beginnings where the claims are listed) is very weird and I had trouble deciphering what kind of math they were getting at. Not to mention one could spend days if not weeks reading them all and all supplemental material. Overall it looks like Ogg would have to include some very specific algorithms to be infringing (unless just the fact that the patents claim to patent one method of doing a certain type/part of encoding signals is enough to claim infringement--i.e. one form of encoding algorithm counts as owning them all...but that doesn't seem very reasonable.)
Rachael
"Go Forth Ye Lemmings and Propagate"
Linde said what he said only because it was an opportunity for some free FUD. Between the lines, it says, "we're worried/scared, they're on our radar, and we need to make some noise. Words are cheaper than lawyers."
Big surprise.
If Slashdotters didn't expect that already, well, shame on you. Sudden worried speculation about Fraunhofer's and Thomson's 'newly ominous tone' is just the snowball they'd like to start (while pressing full-steam ahead with the new webcast and download licensing). I'd be annoyed if they managed to start it with a single public sentence (we've known they didn't like us for quite a while in private). Let's not be a herd of sheep being maneuvered into the chute.
Thomson and FhG both have a reputation of a loud bark, but tend to pursue relatively little litigation in practice and they'll have to work hard to find basis against Xiphophorus. When we did our patent review, we focused on the FhG/Thomson MPEG patents. Our counsel advises us we don't infringe, what we knew already.
In other words, nothing's changed from yesterday except that Linde has decided to bluff before the call.
Monty
Don't attack Eric for telling what he sees to be the truth. That's his job.
Behind the scenes, he's a friend of the Ogg project and has been for some time. He's doing his job by calling it how he sees it, and we don't ask him to spin the facts toward our favor. He also doesn't have control over which quote a reporter will choose.
Monty
These delayed-action patent issues are becoming predictable. The community ought to keep its collective eyes out for this in the future. While not exactly the same, the similarities are striking:
We should all be experienced enough with this phenomenon to see it coming a mile away. From this perspective, things like Windows Media are not competitors to mp3, they are just different complainants in the patent lawsuits.
I strenuously suggest people use png, .ogg, and anything other technology that isn't trying to strangle open standards.
The Internet wouldn't have existed if they played by these rules at the beginning.
Steve