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

This is exactly why...

[Anonymous Coward]

You should only use MS media player. Then you wont run into these problems.

Weren't they aware of this during implementation?

[Future Man 3000]

I recognize that there aren't a great deal of resources available to the average Free Software programmer, but surely after the deal with GIF a little more dilligence has been put into patent research?

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?

Re:Weren't they aware of this during implementatio

[DaveJay]

...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...

MPlayer too...

[Einherjer]

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

Greed vs. Societal Advancement

[superrcat]

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.

Let me be the first to say...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Weren't they aware of this during implementatio

[Wesley Felter]

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...

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.

Well, I suppose that's one way to kill OSS

[Vip]

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

Re:what about MS patents?

[dyfet]

You mean things like the infamous "@todo" patent on the use of comments in source code to document future todo items??! Yes, they actually received a patent on that! And I received a tatoo in a special place for that, so they can go and try to license my you know what :).

Patents...

[ImaLamer]

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.

Re:Since when did algorithms became patentable

[thanasakis]

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.

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.

You can't "clean up" code.

[Bruce Perens]

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

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Bruce, who is so famous and respected that he'll be moderated +5 for writing anything ;)

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

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

[lakeland]

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.

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

[stor]

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

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

[BlueWonder]

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.

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

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

[acegas]

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

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

[Sanity]

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.

im confused

[mr_tommy]

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...

GStreamer is under less of a threat than others

[thomasvs]

I am one of the GStreamer developers. I'm flattered we are in this list, but we don't really belong there. GStreamer is under much less of a threat than the other projects mentioned here.

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 ?

• Distributions can finally ship a multimedia platform in a legal way; see the up-take on Totem and RhythmBox for example. Flumotion, Fluendo's streaming server with support for royalty-free codecs, is a new project and already it is gaining quite an uptake.

  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.

• Source does not have to be "crippled" to be shippable. Other projects get their tarball mangled to remove all questionable code, causing lots of bug reports, ... Take XMMS in Fedora as an example - people complained loudly about the removal of MP3. Actually, Red Hat had the guts to make a stand and decide "we can't legally ship this, and we should stop pretending it's not a problem."
• GStreamer had some discussions with the FSF (here's the result. In a nutshell, it is vital for a complete framework (ie, all parts of its stack) to not be GPL (or GPL, with an exception clause for GStreamer - see our licensing advisory for more info). The GPL is not compatible with patents. A distro can not risk shipping a stack of libs/plugins/applications where one of these is GPL.
• "For sale" distributions will finally be able to ship proprietary plugins for these patented codecs, as well as playback applications, and DVD playback, *and it will finally be legal* on Linux.
• Apart from Sorenson (who outright refuse - or are not allowed - to license code to anyone but Apple), codec companies are turning around, taking note of Linux, and Fluendo is stepping up to make sure that those who really want these proprietary codecs can buy them.
• Here is what you can do. People need to realize that, jus

Defeating Patents GPL style? A suggestion.

[MacDork]

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...

What the FOSS world needs to do (please read)

[uprock_x]

...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.