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."

14 of 421 comments (clear)

  1. More info by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Informative


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

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

  2. This is exactly why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  3. MPlayer too... by Einherjer · · Score: 5, Informative

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

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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...

  7. a huge step backwards by qwp · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  8. 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.

  9. Kopete, too by praseodym · · Score: 5, Informative

    Kopete has a warning message on its site as well.

  10. 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
      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

  11. im confused by mr_tommy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...

  12. GStreamer is under less of a threat than others by thomasvs · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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
  13. Defeating Patents GPL style? A suggestion. by MacDork · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...