Slashdot Mirror
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."
Don't get me wrong; I'd rather we just do away with patents entirely, but it's a fact that Europe will buy into this system sooner or later. Maybe now's the time to clean up any potentially infringing code or move it to an even more legally-backwards locale?
I never vote for anyone. I always vote against.
-- W.C. Fields
I have not RTFA, but I'm sure almost all of the codecs and the patents that are being discussed are owned by the MPEG group (being they are using MPEG-2 encoding/decoding without a license).
LAME is already illegal in the U.S. because it did MP3, and I suspect the rest of these projects will be killed off for similar reasons.
I'm not suprised - when you look for "free mpeg-2 decoders" you don't find much. Well, you don't find anything that is gratis. After careful research you find that open source projects are doing a lot of mpeg-2 work, but they usually don't advertise that fact.
I didn't say it was "right", but it's not suprising. Really, you can't do anything with SVCD or DVD on Windows without owning a MPEG-2 decoder. If I was someone who made money on selling MPEG-2 codecs, I'd go after VideoLAN too. It's a lucrative business.
Get your Unix fortune now!
So whilst writing a letter to my local MEP, I did a little research around the subject - and stubled upon this speech.
"Before concluding, I would like to say a few words on the substance of the proposal, since Parliament will now need to turn its attention to this. The Commission proposed to clarify the legal rules on patentability for software-related inventions. This does not include computer programs or other software as such. It means inventions that make a technical contribution and that are truly novel. Such inventions are present in a number of everyday consumer goods such as cars, mobile telephones and domestic appliances. The Commission's intention in making its proposal was to avoid the patenting of pure software and make a clear distinction between the European Union and the United States. Nothing that is not patentable now will be made patentable by the directive.
The current rules in the European Patent Convention leave patent examiners very wide decision-making powers. There can be different interpretations as to whether an invention can be patented. This leads to uncertainty for businesses. Small and medium-sized enterprises in particular are negatively affected by the lack of clarity in the existing rules.
I would like to remind Members that, in the absence of a directive, patents will continue to be granted. If patent offices decide to grant patents for pure software, then expensive procedures before the Courts will be the only option for those who wish to object.
Those of you who have been directly involved in working on this proposal know as well as I do that this is a very complex area. Any modifications will need to be carefully examined. The directive cannot be turned on its head. We need to maintain a proper balance between stimulating innovation and making sure competition is not stifled."
I'm a little confused...
I'm posting anonymously because I have a confession. I hold a degree in both CS and mathematics. I run linux on two of my three home computers and the third is Windows only because I use it as a digital audio workstation. Sorry for the life story; just pointing out that I am a geek.
Also, I'm a patent examiner.
With all due respect, some of what you've written is FUD. For example,
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.
A vague patent is a weak patent. I know this because I examine them. Attorneys know this because they prosecute them. If you file for a patent, the last thing you want is a vague patent. If you're sued for infringement, hope beyond hope that it is a vague patent. 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.
(The typical response is that the USPTO shouldn't grant vague patents. Patent prosecution is a complex field all to itself and without going into lengthy details, let me assure everyone that the USPTO would love to grant only fantastically strong, specific patents, however that is not always possible because of the outside checks & balances placed on the USPTO (primarily courts, but other influences exist.))
And worse, there are so many granted patents on basics of computer science.
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*)
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.
With all due respect, if there is prior art, put it in front of a judge and you have proven that you have not infringed. (Patent enforcement is not a criminal offence, therefore you do not prove your innocence.) It is much easier to say there is prior art than to understand what prior art actually is, let alone prove that prior art existed. Of course, I'm only speaking from the perspective of someone who finds and proves prior art for a living.
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.
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? For crying out loud, they could have shut down the internet. That patent has recently expired, but how does this fit in with the "IBM wants to dominate the entire computer software industry" line of reasoning? Beats me, man.
Anyway, just wanted to offer a little counterpoint. I'm that type of computer geek who hates to deal with ACTUAL computers - algorithms and Turing Machines are my playground. Now I examine patents and make serious bank doing it. 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.
I won
Why ? Because GStreamer was designed *from the start* to be pluggable. The whole patent issue is one of the main reasons why GStreamer is designed the way it is. Sure, it took a lot longer to get to a point where stuff starts to Just Work, because we wanted to make sure we would be around when the shit hits the fan.
So while a lot of other projects chose to ignore the whole patent problem, and a lot of projects used the GPL as a license (which indeed is not compatible with patents), making it possible for any distro to ship them, we had the focus of making sure that the GStreamer platform is pluggable to the point where the libraries can be put in or taken out without breaking the applications. It's also one of the reasons why GStreamer, from the start, has been LGPL - because that allows distributors to ship a complete stack of GStreamer applications legally in places where software patents apply (like, say, the whole US). Fighting software patents is a great idea. Waving the problem away as if it's not there is not.
Also, with the arrival of Fluendo, a company building stuff on top of GStreamer, (and also a company I happily work for :)), people will be able to get codecs for the patented formats in a legal way, if they chose not to run the risk, or if they want to be legally safe.
What does this mean in the end ?
Very few distros have taken the risk to ship one of the other projects, for legal reasons. (Apparently the mighty Debian ships Xine, and while on any other non-free subject lots of noise is made, this one seems to be left alone because it's a big deal).
It is no coincidence that projects like mplayer, vlc, and xine do not get shipped by most distributions. In fact, coincidentally, Fluendo did a press release on this very issue yesterday.
Ok, so software patents suck big time. What do we do about it? Why not start a Free Patent Foundation (FPF). All patents owned by the FPF are freely licensed to anyone with the following restriction: Any party that makes use of a FPF patent library is required by the license to cross license their entire patent library with the FPF. Using a FPF patent constitutes acceptance of the license. Corporations would simply be blind sided because they are advised to NOT research patents or face triple damages. Now, when they violate our patents, ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US! ;-) Either that, or they have to stop shipping their product. If these companies really do patent 'defensively' as many say they do, then they shouldn't mind a bit now, should they? Once they are in the fold, all patents created by them are added to the FPF. Of course, I'm not a patent lawyer, so feel free to inform me that I'm a clueless moron...
...is just ignore patents, carry on regardless and make great software.
I know it all seems terribly seriously and gloomy, but when you have bad laws the only way they are killed or rendered impotent is if a large chunk of people reject it in everyday life and that's what people need to (carry on) doing. The FOSS community needs to harden it's resolve, stop flipflopping around and whining and just stay true to it's goals.
The 'law' has failed many many people throughout history and delivered incredible injustices and attrocities on humanity. It is not an absolute righteousness handed down by God or whatever creator you believe or don't belive in. It has certainely failed the FOSS movement, which needs to start looking beyond whatever the current law is now.
I suspect VLC and MPlayer are trying to drum up some sympathy and are shooting themselves in the foot a little bit with their "it will all end soon" messages (great software though they both are). And remember it was always pointed out to Slashdot by some here that Europe would not be the bastion of justice and morality some in the US thought it would be when it came to patents etc. Unfortunately the EU is riddled with corruption.
Just go forth and continue to make your software and distribute it by whatever means necessary. Because if you really believe in your heart you would let nothing or no one stop you.