Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

VLC & European Patents

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the going-to-get-worse-before-it-gets-better dept.

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."

18 of 421 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Weren't they aware of this during implementatio by DaveJay · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...or move it to an even more legally-backwards locale?

    Actually, considering the nature of software patents, I should think we're looking for a place that is more legally forward-thinking...

  2. Greed vs. Societal Advancement by superrcat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It should be legal to reverse engineer/use patented techniques when it is used to enable integration and compatibility in a non-commerical manner. Using patents to stiffle integration and compatibility should be considered a violation of fair use.

  3. Let me be the first to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Patents which exist solely for the sake of preventing compatibility aren't "innovation."

    One modern video codec is as good as any other. They're just all different implementations of the same basic mathematics. They all produce similar quality from similar file sizes. Businesses do the same stupid thing every time: patent one particular method (which is not necessarily better than any other method) of encoding, distribute EITHER the decoder to recipients or the encoder to content producers, whichever is easier for your business, and thereby bully the other group into paying for the use of your amazing "technology."

    Gah. It's all bullshit.

  4. Re:Weren't they aware of this during implementatio by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    During their implementation (which started years ago), they were aware that there were no software patents in Europe.

    Given the number and scope of multimedia patents, the only way to clean up any potentially infringing code would involve rm -rf...

  5. Well, I suppose that's one way to kill OSS by Vip · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You just threaten that it breaks one of your patents, it ties up the developers into looking at the code and the patents. Development will be slower because of tied up resources, and you can attempt to kill it off. Even if the claim is bunk, you still make them lose much development time.

    While it's probably not what DTS is after, they really don't compete with MPlayer, perhaps other companies will try it.

    I'm just surprised DTS would even bother. After all, if your decoding capabilities are built-in to the most commonly used players, wouldn't that give prospective clients more incentive to use DTS? *shrug*

    Vip

  6. Re:Since when did algorithms became patentable by thanasakis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Thanks! But isn't it an oxymoron that projects and software that are around for years will become illegal suddenly? I mean, presently, nobody has the ability to patent an algorithm in Europe. So, imagine someone in Europe that has thought of an original algorithm for, say, image compression. He is the first to think of it, but naturally he can't patent it. A year later, a company in America goes an patents the same technology. Now suddenly the EC decides to pass this stupid stupid stupid law. The original inventor would be in danger of getting sued for using something he originaly invented.

  7. Re:Weren't they aware of this during implementatio by Nutcase · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Brazil would probably be a good choice.

  8. You can't "clean up" code. by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I don't believe that it is possible for any significant work of software to be non-infringing on granted patents. Unfortunately, you can't prove that your program is "clean" by searching patents. Modern patents are written to be as vague as possible in order to allow enforcement of the patent on the widest possible range of software - including things the purported inventor didn't think of when filing the patent. So, you can't necessarily find a patent that applies to what you are working on, even if the patent holder would be disposed to prosecute you under that patent. You can't determine that you are not infringing a particular patent due to its vagueness, without bringing a suit against the patent holder to determine the issue. And worse, there are so many granted patents on basics of computer science. These things weren't inventions, there is prior art, but given that it costs up to US$5 Million to defend yourself (Economic Survey, American Intellectual Property Law Association), you will not be able to prove your innocence.

    In other words, unless your company is so big that you can use your huge patent portfolio against all equal-sized or smaller companies, you're hosed. This is a game that only multinationals can win - and that's why IBM and HP lobby for Software patenting in Europe despite their affiliation with Open Source. It's more important to them to be able to dominate the entire computer software industry than it is to work with us.

    Bruce

    --
    Bruce Perens.
    1. Re:You can't "clean up" code. by lakeland · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you are sued for infringement, then you have lost. End of story. The cost of invalidating a patent is so high that it cannot be afforded by anybody. So, if you are sued, you are screwed.

      I would like to repeat this ten times to drill it into your head, but I will save space and just repeat it once. In the world we live in, being sued for patent infringement will destroy your business and your life. Ordinary small business do not have the resources necessary to invalidate any patents. The ONLY way to save them is to not grant them in the first place.

      Now return to your scenario. Is it better to have a vague patent, or a non-vague one? Clearly the vague patent is better, because it is easier to start a lawsuit. Sure, you'll probably lose if they fight -- but who cares, only one in a hundred is stupid enough to fight.

      I suppose you could argue that in a hypothetical world where the legal system was affordable, this would not be the case. Well, sorry. We don't live in a hypthetical world, and we write rules to fit with the world we live in.

    2. Re:You can't "clean up" code. by stor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Did you know that IBM held a patent for highlighting an input field in a user interface to indicate to the user that the field is mandatory? ...

      You can trust that I sleep just fine at night, mainly because I see first hand that the vast majority of the Slashdot/geek/media communities' complaints about the USPTO are, at best, baseless.

      Hmm?

      We claim: "The USPTO grants ridiculous software patents"

      You claim: "The USPTO grants ridiculous software patents"

      From what you say above it seems the /. crowd are fairly accurate.

      Cheers
      Stor

      --
      "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
    3. Re:You can't "clean up" code. by BlueWonder · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I hold a degree in both CS and mathematics. [...] Also, I'm a patent examiner.

      Can you explain to me how it could have happened that the USPTO has granted a patent on something which is mathematically impossible? I'm thinking of the compression algorithm which claims to losslessly compress any input to a smaller size, in a way that the process is reversible (US patent #5,533,051).

      Seriously, if you can think of any explanation besides incompetence of the patent examiners how such things can happen, please offer it.

    4. Re:You can't "clean up" code. by acegas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have no idea how you can review 200 patents in a day and be able to deeply understand them and their implications, much less do the research necessary.
      Props for giving us an inside look though

    5. Re:You can't "clean up" code. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You would have to get through several months or even years of expensive discovery first. Most likely you will not be able to afford the teams of lawyers necessary to meat various deadlines and you will lose by default.

    6. Re:You can't "clean up" code. by Wolfbone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "With all due respect, I'm quite familiar with the basics of computer science. My areas of expertise include computability and algorithm analysis. I have spent more time staring at FSMs and models of computation than any human should. Do you mind sharing some of these granted patents on the basics of computer science? I look at anywhere from 5-200 computer-related patents every business day and have yet to find them. (Cue the requisite jokes about a patent examiner's inability to find something *rimshot*)"

      Rather than fill this post with links to a myriad RLE and other compression patents, discrete transform patents, Djikstra algorithm variants, memory management algorithms etc. etc. I'll just say this: Congratulations! - it's not every day one comes across someone who knows more about computer science than Donald Knuth.

    7. Re:You can't "clean up" code. by Pete · · Score: 3, Insightful

      High-profile people do have a higher chance of being modded up because moderators notice their name.

      But the related side-effect is that high-profile opensource people are usually more likely to write lucid, intelligent, and possibly even well-informed posts. Usually because if they bother to post to slashdot at all, it's on an area of interest. And it appears patents, especially software patents, are interesting to Bruce.

      But in regard to the geek-patent-examiner-AC's comment - well, he did put a smiley at the end of the sentence. Ha-ha only serious. The only minor shot he was taking at Bruce's comment was that he thought it contained some FUD. And he (the AC) actually backed up that opinion with some actual evidence (rare on slashdot, I know).

      Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean you don't respect them. And conversely, just because you respect someone doesn't mean you must agree with them on everything.

    8. Re:You can't "clean up" code. by Sanity · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I am the CEO of a software development company and I have personally been forced to decide to keep my company from innovating in particular software markets due to patents on obvious techniques (*cough* Acacia *cough*), not because these patents would survive a court challenge, but because we couldn't risk going to court in the first place with such a well-funded adversary. My point is that the harm is very real and it is starting to touch the activities of many many software engineers.
      Maybe I was a little ambitious with the use of the term FUD but I stand by everything I said. Yes, patents are a rich man's game. That's part of the cost of doing business in the US.
      But don't you see that this is the crux of the matter? Getting dragged into court just for trying to innovate shouldn't be a cost of doing business in the US any more than getting dragged before the Spanish inquisition should have been a cost of doing science in the middle ages.

      The fact that it is a cost of doing business is a failure of patent law to meet its constitutional mandate to further the progress of science and it is and will continute to hold back innovation in the US and other countries where patents on software are permitted.

      Software doesn't need patents, copyright provides ample motivation to software developers. The only people I know that have sought software patents only even thought of doing it after they had developed their "invention", thus the patent did not serve as a motivating factor for them, meaning society suffered the cost of the patent monopoly with no benefit in return. In my experience this is always the case with software patents.

    9. Re:You can't "clean up" code. by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Since you seem to be well informed and actually involved in this process, you might be able to answer some questions here:

      > Did you know that IBM held a patent for highlighting an input field in a user interface to indicate to the user that the field is mandatory?

      Could you explain why in the world that patent was granted? There is no check on something being obvious anymore? Or does the fact that something happens to involve a computer automatically make it new and non obvious?

      Just to be utterly clear here, hilighting mandatory fields on a paper form has been used for longer then computers exist.

      Could you explain how Microsoft managed to get a patent on using xor to make a cursor blink? (this is an obvious method for anyone who ever did a little bit of assembler coding at the very least)

      Can you explain the famous Amazon one click patent and it not being dismissed inmediately because of being utterly obvious? (this seems to be the most valid one of the 3 mentioned in this post actually)

      Can you point us at any software patents that actually comply with the requirement of providing enough information so that a practiser in the field the patent applies to can reimplement it based on the text of the patent?

      Thanks for your corrections but it still makes no sense at all.

  9. Many of you still don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In the long term there is NO WAY we can keep the EU or any other part of the world from approving patents on software, because politicians will always care about the interests of whom/what put and keep them in place, ie corporations not common people. The point is that we're slowly approaching the critical level where the concepts of doing "the right thing" and "the legal thing" take opposite directions and become mutually exclusive until we'll be forced to make THE choice.
    The real question is not if, but when the moment arrives, are we ready to act as pirates? Because that's the point "they" are leading us to.