VLC & European Patents

CaptScarlet22 writes " VideoLAN is seriously threatened by software patents due to the numerous patented techniques it implements and uses. Also threatened are the many libraries and projects which VLC is built upon, like FFmpeg, and the other fellow Free And Open Source software multimedia players, which include MPlayer, xine, Freevo, MythTV, gstreamer."

Comments

More info

[TripMaster Monkey]

In the interest of stimulating more discussion, some more information about this subject can be found here

MPlayer too...

[Einherjer]

On a sidenote, mplayer has the same message on its website. have a look: http://www.mplayerhq.hu/homepage/index.html

Re:Weren't they aware of this during implementatio

[ShieldW0lf]

Programmers are generally recommended NOT to investigate patents at all. If they knowingly offend, they pay triple damages when taken to task over it in the US (holy mecca of patent litigation)

The generally accepted practice in the business world is build it without having any awareness that it was previously discovered or patented, then have your lawyers look for infringement and negotiate a deal. The developers, engineers, etc are generally prohibited from going anywhere near patents.

Consciously avoid being exposed to other ppls ideas, reinvent the wheel, employ a bunch of people who could be doing something productive to find out after the fact if anyone has invented this before, and then hope that there's enough revenue for your new idea left after you pay to license the patents.

Kind of puts the lie to the whole "in the interests of progress" thing, doesn't it?

a huge step backwards

[qwp]

If this project disappears then it will be a huge step backwards for digital multimedia. On every system I use this is one of the first packages I install. One cannot trust quicktime or windows media players.

it is semi odd that Europe is anti media players in Windows, and then they are threatening to slay free media players. Seams like a double standard.

Re:excellent planning.

[Dr. Evil]

One stitch of GPL'd code and it is forbidden.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html Section 7:... "... For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program."

Kopete, too

[praseodym]

Kopete has a warning message on its site as well.

Re:You can't "clean up" code.

[Bruce Perens]

If the language of the patent is vague, attack it with 35 USC 112 and have the patent either invalidated or returned to the office for re-examination. If that attack fails, apparently the patent is not vague.

With all due respect, if there is prior art, put it in front of a judge

It's easy for you to say that I should go to court, but the fact is that if I have to go to court, I have already lost. I would have to settle. I can't afford the legal fees to get to the first day of verbal argument. Nor can any other Open Source developer. You should take into account the fact that the courts are a rich man's game before calling FUD on me.

Regarding basics of computer science, there's a recent one from Microsoft on performing a different action if you press a button twice rather than once that should not have been awarded and IMO the filer purjured himself regarding prior art.

Thanks for admitting that you would prefer to only grant non-obvious patents. The fact is that your job should be very different. You should be given a lot more time to consider a patent and go to the library. You should have a real triviality test - bringing a problem before a jury of developers to solve within a time limit - rather than the joke of one that you have now. And the people who send you patents should have real jail penalties for the way that they purjure themselves.

Bruce