Slashdot Mirror
SanDisk MP3 Players Seized in MP3 Licence Dispute
MrSteveSD writes "According to the BBC, German officials have seized Sandisk's MP3 players at the IFA show in Berlin. The Italian company Sisvel claims that Sandisk has refused to pay license fees for the MP3 codec. Sisvel President Roberto Dini has said that Sandisk could get an edge over competitors by not paying the fees. How much are proprietary format licensing fees pushing up the cost of consumer goods?"
This doesn't make sense to me. I mean, I guess it should, but how can one patent a format?
I mean, I can see patenting an algorithm (an original implementation) that allows you to effeciently encode/decode a particular format - or even patenting hardware that works specifically with those formats.
But the format itself?
Why must you pay fees if you develop your very own, original and novel algorithm for decoding the mp3 file format?
I'm just having trouble wrapping my brain around this for some reason.
Patenting a format just feels like patenting a poetic form or something. Sure, you can write an original poem and copyright it, that seems common sense...but claiming the poet must pay licensing just for making their poem a haiku?
It just seems absurd to me.
My Computer Music Tutorial Videos
Shouldn't this fall under the law (I forget the exact description) that allows a company to provide a product "compatible" to a format/standard/etc. without having to buy a license as long as they don't use the patented program/codec? IE - OpenOffice will open/save MS Word Docs.... Same thing??
How long has the MP3 technology been around? Shouldn't this sort of thing have entered the public domain if there was any sanity in the Intellectual Property system?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3
From TFA "We have 600 licensees and we have to protect their rights, and the rights of the patent holders," he [Giustino de Sanctis] added.
Waitadurnminute. I've seen this one before..Christopher Stasheff (Warlock in Spite of Himself series) created GRIPE (Guardians of the Rights of Individuals, especially Patent Holders). Doesn't that qualify as pior art, and so shouldn't he get the mp3 license fees?
The BBC report states, "Italian patents company Sisvel alleges that SanDisk refuses to pay licensing fees it needs to playback MP3 files." In other words, the Slashdot article starting this discussion is poorly worded. The issue is, in fact, the patent for the algorithm (that decodes the format, thus enabling playback), not the format itself.
Still, the cost of licensing the patent should not be a concern for the consumer -- i.e., you and me. If the licensing cost ever became too high and impacted sales of the product, then the industry would just switch to another decoding algorithm (and accompanying format). Think RAMBUS DRAM versus DDR2 SDRAM.
Der Post ist hiermit beschlagnahmt. Melden Sie sich unverzüglich bei der nächsten Gestapo-Geschäftsstelle.
...the obligatory "So why don't they just use .OGG/.FLAC" comment? Oops.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Then go and make another codec that can compete with the commercial versions that prevail on the open market and give it away for free.
kind of like this?
http://www.vorbis.com/
Tharkban (It is a signature after all)
"I suppose they don't have their own novel algorithm for decoding MP3. Such a thing, if it existed (which it probably cannot), would clearly dodge any patent fee claims."
If you RTA, you'll find that in fact, they claim to have both a novel method for decoding and playing the file as well as verificaiton of this fact.
It's called Ogg Vorbis, is superior in quality to mp3, encodes faster, use a sane tagging system, and I'm eagerly awaiting an non-mp3 vorbis-player. Would be fucking HARDCORE.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Oh please you stupid fuckhead. SanDisk's not paying royalties has nothing to do with Communism or Socialism or anything other than Capitalism and Corporatism.
Fuck you.
Yeah that. Now see if you can overcome the inertia of "whomever got here first". In the mean time the AC's argument still holds.
I have yet to see an informed opinion on whether or not the DEcoding process necessarily uses any of these patents. Somewhere I heard that only one of the error correction patents is possibly involved in decoding.
Also does this story soun a bit sensational - come on... seizing product at a trade show? If you actually have a case, why not take them to court? Or would that not make the newspapers, scaring smaller companies than Sandisk into just paying the fees.
Big Companies Cheat.
I'm actually really glad I purchased a SanDisk MP3 player now!
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
IFA Show? IFA is the world's largest Consumer Electronics trade fair, the most important international exhibition for electronic entertainment, communications and ...
From the article:
SanDisk's IFA stall was left almost empty ... Giustino de Sanctis, head of Sisvel's US-based subsidiary Audio MPEG, SanDisk's refusal to purchase an MP3 licence leaves them out of step with some 600 other manufacturers and software developers. ... "We have 600 licensees and we have to protect their rights, and the rights of the patent holders,"
Protect their "right" to pay you for an audio compression algorithm by embarrassing a competitor at the show? That's some kind of protection alright.
Just use ogg.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Yeah, exactly like that. Then, don't use the proprietary format anymmore. Then, whenever you see someone complaining about how the priorietary format costs money, assist in shouting them down, as well as directing them to vorbis.
"I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -D. Adams
That's OGG and while OGG has it's place, we're talking MP3 codec.
SanDisk and others in the music player market need MP3 codecs to even consider a media player release.
OGG codec is a nice to have.
So I'm not getting your point. Or were you somehow trying to say "we should all ditch MP3 for OGG because OGG is license free"?
If that's the case, then stop mumbling and just come out and say it, then we could all have a laugh at your expense and be friends.
The issue with patent law in general is that with a term of 20 years, the inventor gets 20 years of monopoly profits while the consumer gets screwed with 20 years of monopoly and price gouging.
A good way to reduce the amount of people getting screwed would be to base the term of patent by field/sector/some sort of estimate on how long it takes to break even in that sector. Take that, x, and add some years, say 5, as reward. This way, innovation continues and the consumer gets screwed only x+5 years instead of 20 years. I'm pretty sure x will turn out to be much smaller than 15.
right on.
Mod up.
to all those screaming about how MP3 should be free and yadda yadda... let them go to work at their jobs, without getting paid at all. Let them have all their efforts be recognized, praised and placed in heavy demand all over the world, and then not get a dime. But most of all, let them not get paid at their current jobs. That way, when they end up broke and homeless, they finally understand what it's like to have your ideas stolen.
"I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -D. Adams
It varies by codec. Anywhere from 10 cents to $1 per unit (MP3, incidentally, generally falls into the higher tier and is MUCH more expensive that competing formats.) If your device supports many codecs, you can expect up to around $1.50 of the production cost was codec licensing. Overall, this is NOT the big cost in production. More will have been spent on the storage medium by far.
See Subject
Additional: the mp3 (mpeg-1 layer3) patent expires in 2008 (1991 + 17 years)
dude, rtfa.
"An expert opinion from one of the founders of MP3 digital audio compression substantiates SanDisk's position. SanDisk is not infringing any patent in the pending litigation."
I think you're a little confused about capitalism. Cartels (the essential problem behind proprietary format adoption) are inimical to capitalism. They are the opposite of competition. When a proprietary format becomes the de facto standard due not to its superiority, but due to its selection by the established companies, it's not a success of capitalism.
I've noticed a lot of pseudo-capitalists like to bandy out the insult of "communism" when they want to endorse anticompetitive systems. It's actually the opposite, though; these people are far closer to practical "communists" (desiring centralized control by whoever already has the money or power) than those they attack.
Why should they have to be paid in order for us to get to content we already own? I couldn't care less about what few megabytes were shaved of the size of a song, if it means that the software needed to decode them can't be distributed freely. They should not be payed because paying them is the only way to get to your music, but for getting the music down to a small size at little loss of content.
I just have 3 letters for them. OGG. Nuff said.
Actually, from first-hand experience I can tell you that we (in the US) most definitely live in a developed Socialist society. You just never lived in the USSR, I assume. Back to the patent/licensing issue, though. I agree, if I come up with something useful that also happens to be in demand, I would like my share of the pie. I see no reason why anyone should enjoy the fruits of my labor for free, unless I want them to. This is regardless of whether someone uses my work directly or tries to build on top of it - I would want a piece of the action.
I guess, in a situation like this, it all boils down to whether or not I, the patent holder, and the potential licensees want to be reasonable. These two definitions of what's "reasonable" quickly grow apart as the amount of potential profit increases. It's OK to be greedy. If in the end that MP3 costs too much for the target consumer, then everyone will lose and new arrangements will be made. On the other hand, patents should never stand in the way of progress. Patents are routinely used to squash competition and unfairly increase the profit margin at the consumer's expense.
The entire patent system is a part of our society. It should benefit the society. And if it doesn't, then it should be swapped for something more user friendly, regardless of whether the users are capitalist conservatives or pinko commies.
How much are proprietary format licensing fees pushing up the cost of consumer goods?
In this case, 75 cents per hardware MP3 decoder, with a minumum of $15,000 per year. Personally, I'm more worried about royalty payments' inherent incompatability with free software, seeing as you can't keep track of who's copied it to who by its very nature.
And a farkin licensing fee or royalty compensation is A-O-Fuggin-K in my book.
The problem is when formats that we use to communicate are encumbered by patents.
It's not enough just to make something better. We've already done that: it's called Vorbis. The inventors of MP3 are now profiting not on the merit of their technology, but the sheer inertia that you get when one format is a dominant standard.
It's just like GIF: PNG is better than GIF is nearly every way, and yet the computing world was stuck paying Unisys for years for their inferior technology, simply because GIF was entrenched.
That's why we "communist buddies" insist on unencumbered standards when it comes to the protocols and formats we use to communicate. We're not interested in writing checks indefinitely for the privilege of sending data to other people, or putting it on devices. It would be one thing if these technologies competed on merit alone, and if you could quickly drop one when a better one became available, but it doesn't work that way.
"you want it for free and expect that the market should not be burdend by license or royalty?"
If you are a full free-market capitalist then indeed you wouldn't want government intervening in the market with enforcement of patents and copyright and licenses with royalties, or intervening in general.
I guess since you enjoy government intervention you might want to think about that before you start calling other people 'communist's.
--
Arizona Web Design
You've just explained why technology is moving so slowly nowadays.
Did you know perpendicular recording for hard disks was developed in 1976 but is only now being implemented? It's because patent law has caused hard drive makers to sit on the technology and wait for the patent to expire before researching its implementation - which, just so you know, is long before the production phase.
Many patent holders are now stuck waiting for someone to implement their ideas, while industrialists are waiting for their patents to expire. The patent holders get no money and the technology they came up with, never makes it to market for over 20 years.
The makers of the mp3 patent, thus, took advantage of something called submarine patents. They let the technology fall into the wild, where people use their technology for a while, and then they nail them with the mp3 patent when the product goes commercial and is heavily entrenched. Also see: Unisys and GIF.
Now you have companies like Intellectual Ventures which amass zillions of patents intending to ensnare anyone who blunders into their mine field.
BTW a great deal of our economy is now engulfed in patent litigation. Fear of patent litigation is slowing a lot of innovation because practically any business model based on cutting edge work is vulnerable to a lawsuit over an infringement of an obscure or broad brushing patent.
Let me put it this way for your Conservative mind:
If Frauhoff (sp?) had enforced their patent from day one, you would not be seeing mp3's in existence now, or at any time until after the patent ran out.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
There should be mod points for +1/2 "Funny but no one will understand it"
Italy's bitch for the next 4 long years. Enforcing patent laws is only the beginning. Stay tunned.
"I think we all agree that inventors of good ideas should be protected. But don't you think that 20 years for a term of patent is way too long? The primary argument for patents is that innovation should be rewarded - but how long does it really take to turn a profit on a great idea? 5? 10 years?"
Oh Lord. We have a varient on this theme in EVERY SINGLE DISCUSSION were IP represents a barrier to geeks getting some techno-toy (and it is a toy for the market's saturated with MP3 players, both soft and hard). Why don't we cut to the chase and simply point out two things. One some people don't like IP and there's no time limit that'll satisfy them. Two a good portion of you know diddly-squat about business (and it shows). Yes sometime it takes 5 (to borrow your limit) or more years to bring something from an idea, all the way to something one can purchase. Three be glad it's twenty years unlike what copyright offers (yeah I believe in copyright limits).
"The issue with patent law in general is that with a term of 20 years, the inventor gets 20 years of monopoly profits while the consumer gets screwed with 20 years of monopoly and price gouging."
I'm going to repeat this until it sinks into all your thick heads. IP DOESN"T mean one will earn a profit. It means you have the POTENTIAL for profit. NOT A GUARENTEE! Don't like it? Don't buy it, and come up with your own alternative. e.g. PNG, OGG.
"How much are proprietary format licensing fees pushing up the cost of consumer goods?"
14 dollars.
Given the ubiquity of MP3, moving to OGG is probably not going to happen. 4 years is nowhere near as long as it would take an entire technogeneration to migrate away from MP3, and as MP3 becomes public domain in 4 years, just wait until then and MP3 will be just as or more "free" than OGG (public domain is "more free" than GPL, sort of).
MP3 quality is fine, and with flash memory prices in freefall, squeezing an extra 13.8% off the track size at a given quality level is going to be moot very soon, if it is not already.
Yours sincerely,
Mr. Reality Check.
I hate printers.
It's fine on a desktop with a high powered general purpose processor, but less so in a hardware implementation.
Two algorithms for generating the set: 1, 4, 9, 16,25
Common:
Dim set(1 to 5)
Algoritm1:
For I = 1 to 5
set (I)= I^2
NEXT I
Algorithm2:
set(i)=1
For I =1 to 4
set(i+1) = Set(i)+2*I +1
NEXT
I wouldn't agree, but it is a reasonable arguement in some sectors. However, it completely falls apart when applied to standards, which mp3 certainly is. Sandisk can't go and roll their own audio compression algorithm, because it wouldn't be compatable with the standardized files everyone uses. (Which is also why no one uses ogg vorbis...)
There needs to be a method to deal with generification in patents.
Hope this is a good lesson for all stupids blindly embracing and promoting low quality MP3 is the way to listen quality music. The MP3 is a marketing hype, it is the armature's music format. SanDisk, take revenge! Just say sorry and switch to Ogg and FLAC.
c odecs.
This is again reminds all about the advantages of open formats. Open formats are patents free, royalty free and best of the best quality. MP3 max sample rate: 48 kHz, FLAC max sample rate: 1048.57 kHz, MP3 max bit rate: 320 kbit/s, FLAC max bit rate: Infinity, as same as original.
See this comparison: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_audio_
The article summary asks, "How much are proprietary format licensing fees pushing up the cost of consumer goods?".
Proprietary format licensing fees are not "pushing up" the cost of consumer goods. Consumer goods will use proprietary formats when the value to the consumer (and thus ultimately to the manufacturer) justifies paying the license fee. Without MP3 support would SanDisk be able to target such a large market? Probably not. They would save $0.75 in licensing and lose millions of dollars in sales overall.
At the end of the day it is not a "proprietary format" raising the price, it is market demand.
There is nothing "conservative" about having the state enforce a monopoly. Intellectual property is a new invention. The founding father of modern free market economics/capitalism (Adam Smith) took it for granted that competetors would try to learn each others secrets and eventually imitate each other (and that this was normal). At no point did he consider that the state should actually PROTECT those secrets. This is NOT a conservative idea.
He also never considered that laborors and owners would simply throw their hands up and refuse to "invent" unless they had a state protected monopoly. He recognized that it was human nature to constantly seek new ways of making its life or work easier. And invention was inevitable.
In so far as mankind has been inventing for thousands of years without patents. How can you claim patents are "conservative"?
Adam Smith actually considered virtually all state intervention of any kind to be doomed in its effort to achieve what it set out to do and would just slow growth (which in his economic theory causes human suffering).
state protection of monopolies is the hallmark of something called NEO-LIBERALISM. So, perhaps you should get your terminology straight. For that matter Neo-conservatives should stop claiming to be conservatives as well. There is nothing conservative about big-government and unilateralism.
conservatives (I mean the real ones) believe in individual freedom and responsibility as well as minimal government involvement. This would include in taking on the responsibility of protecting your clever ideas simply by keeping your mouth shut.
A conservative would never think that someone ought to get a monopoly just because they were the first person to tell the government about their idea. The entire notion of REPORTING TO THE GOVERNMENT is absolutely anti-ethical to a true conservative. A true conservative would think that you can keep your manufacturing processes a secret for a time easily enough and if you can't turn around and make any money that way before someone else figures it out, perhaps it wasn't such a clever idea afterall.
Conservatism is not about being authoritarian and domineering or trusting the President. It is about keeping whatever worked in the past and sticking to it with only small incremental changes when necessary. In the past a person could do whatever they wanted with their PRIVATE physical property, and no lawyer or patent clerk was going to tell him otherwise.
Patents and intellectual property are legal fictions designed to keep you from being able to use your own private property how you see fit. That is not "conservative".
At the very minimum a conservative would argue that patents are a necessary evil because without patents no one would ever invent anything. (which is untrue, but if you believed such a notion at least you could still claim to be conservative). On the otherhand simply being pro-patent for no particuar reason other than "he invented it FIRST so he wins the prize of a state protected monopoly" is being quite modern in your thinking.
So if you are looking for an accurate label (most people claiming to be conservative aren't) how about calling yourself a "monopolist"?
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
Personally I'm hoping for better video codecs so I hope developing them remains profitable. If the open source community wants to really attack a problem come up with superior video and audio codecs. It would benefit all and avoid the licensing fees. Also prevent groups from keeping a strangle hold on who has access to the codecs.
now yu're just trolling for vorbis praise from the ogglidites.
SanDisk Implements mp3 decoding functionality, but with different
library.
Is that not what you have called being " able to make it yourself " ?
Shoul one person get royalties for any laced shoe because he designed lacing system ?
I think the reason that so many people have little respect for licence fees, royalties etc is that so few people individuals receive them.
Most folks' employment is of the form "i get a flat rate and any beneficial thing i come up with benefits only my employer, if i don't come up with beneficial things i get fired". The employer gets to make as much money as it can prise out of the marketplace for the employees ideas/labour etc. Since business is obliged to seek the lowest bidding supplier unless they are forced to do otherwise, ordinary wage slaves feel justified in seeking the lowest cost supplier, such as P2P.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
It's [ogg] fine on a desktop with a high powered general purpose processor, but less so in a hardware implementation.
I've heard that before, but not seen it. What exactly is the trade off? How do people like this do it? How does ogg compare to AAC or AAC with unFairPlay? How is it that my dinky ARM Zaurus plays ogg without a problem, just like the 233 MHz PII it's roughly equivalent to? Why don't I see the difference between ogg and mp3 on any of the devices I use besides the one cheap player I own that won't play ogg? It has a reasonable battery life, but this ogg player goes for 25 hours.
Most importantly, is the performance trade off something worth paying licensing fees and putting up with extortion threats?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Isn't it 20 years?
So you maintain that propriatory codecs aren't pushing up the price because the price hike is paid by the consumer..?
And you don't see the oddity in this stance?!?
Small business and individuals are always honest
Global warming is a cube.
How much would we expect to pay for a car if we had to pay intellectual property fees to the inventors of everything back to the wheel?
Come to think of it... would technology have been able to advance as quickly as it has if we were forced to pay these taxes on the wheel for the last 10,000 years?
Does it go on forever?
I was merely making the point that someone HAS made a free codec and given it away for free. (hence why I quoted that passage)
and btw, I wouldn't buy an "mp3" player that doesn't support ogg. What good is a portable media player that can't play my music collection? I got sick of dealing with mp3's a long time ago. You can start laughing now.
Tharkban (It is a signature after all)
Yet another case where the marketing demonds have crosschecked the technology companies trying to make our lives better. And by crosscheck, I mean that in a hockey sense
It's time to throw off the gloves and start throwing back punches at these beauraucratic marketing people who keep kicking us in the shins!
The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
I don't disagree with everything you're saying, but I do take exception to the intensity and the spite of your argument.
:P
It is a reasonable compromise to grant things like patents and copyrights. However, the current timeframes are out of sync with the pace of information creation and transfer. Entire generations are born and die before their culture---if you even at all recognize that what authors, artists, writers, and the like produce belongs* to all of humanity---whether popular or obscure, ever legally passes to the people and to other producers of culture. Entire generations of products are many times obsolete before their key methods and concepts, perhaps already well-known, may be used freely in mature, more perfectly competitive market, to the point where price level without the patent is effectively zero (e.g., FOSS). The artificial pace imposed by the legal constructs are greatly out of sync with the actual pace of science, technology, and culture.
Yes, an entity deserves to be compensated for its mental labor. But if the compensation goes on for too long, the entity will be more inclined to allow its work to stagnate. Now, this particular case is complicated by failures in other markets (remember, this is the music cartel we're talking about), but I would consider MP3 to be stagnant. More advanced formats have come out, with better quality than what MP3 offers; but then again, many of them may only come with the price of DRM, making files in those markets inferior goods, perhaps even in the technical sense of the term.
All I'm suggesting is that you really take a look at what it is that you're backing. Ask yourself if it's the proper compromise between individual and collective interests, keeping in mind the increasing tendency of information to favor the collective, and the law's increasing tendency to favor the individual; do you support the discord of the status quo?
* Well, having now looked at your bio, I expect a nasty flame in response to this tinderbox of an opinion.
Software patent bill thrown out
Way to go to ignore the will of the elected representatives of the people!
So, if I'm getting this right, a bunch of MP3 players (made in the far East where the relevant patents are in all probability null and void) are seized at a trade show in Germany (where the relevant patents are null and void: Germany is a member of the EU where mathematical operations are specifically excluded from patentability) are seized on the orders of an IP firm based in Italy (where the relevant patents are null and void: Italy is a member of the EU where maths is not patentable) on the grounds that they are in violation of patents?
The fact that the patents in question are null and void will hardly escape the attention of the courts. I don't know whether to expect some good arse-on-plate-handing action, or just a swift "Ting! Next, please!"
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Please learn to read. Here, let me help you: NON-MP3 vorbis-player. All current players also support mp3, so you're paying the mp3-tax or at the very least strengthening their percieved stanglehold of the market.
Let's designate any DAP which doesn't play mp3s as pure. That's what I'm waiting for.
Full Vorbis (incl q < 1) and FLAC (though I personally don't see the point on a portable) + flash-mem + memory card + gapless + replaygain + good radio --> me buy.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Seems to me that I am paying for the same patent too many times - when I buy a mobile, an ipod, car stereo, audio system, OS......instead of all that, if I could just buy a license can I use it on all these devices. What I mean to say is that too many OEMs are buying the same license on my behalf for each of their devices. That seems like a bad deal.
I'm tagging this one "itoldyouso".
The writing has been on the wall for years now, and it's not going to get any better for mp3 users. Fraunhofer/Thomson have fully disclosed since day one that they hold the patents (unethical as the patent system that permitted them may be) and intend to pursue licence "breakers". Not that it matters, since much better codecs exist that aren't so encumbered.
In this day and age there's no good reason for anyone to still be using mp3.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Gosh, do people really still use 'communist' as an insult?
How terribly quaint.
I expect I should get back to Russia, or something.
I believe that MP3 is one of the few file formats that has gained popularity by its own merits. I mean, if you look at the story of MP3 it was at the right place at the right time.
So, the fact that all the digital media player manufacturers want to provide compatibility for that format is in my humble opinion just the product of pure demand. MP3 is then a standard in the industry. I think that, the problem is that this standard is encumbered with a number of patents, but as somebody else said, for all the DMP manufacturers it is worth it. Really, have you seeen ANY media player that DOES NOT play MP3 files?
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
but how long does it really take to turn a profit on a great idea? 5? 10 years?
Let's see....
It's already been discussed elsewhere in this thread that the MP3 patents expire in 2010. Assuming a 25-year patent life (I don't know Italian law), that means they were issued around 1985.
How many MP3 players do you know of that existed in 1985? For that matter, how many people had computers on their desk which could encode an audio CD in a reasonable time?
Why? After all, in communism, Russia gets back to you!
We haven't lost the WC, it's still securely bolted down in the bathroom.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
And that's also why us "libertarian buddies" insist that ideas are not property, and patents are void.
Welcome on board.
> If you are a full free-market capitalist then indeed you wouldn't want government intervening in the market with enforcement of patents and copyright and licenses with royalties, or intervening in general.
If you are a free market capitalist then you probably regard government as just another product that you should be able to purchase.
So, license fee issues for the MP3 playback algorithm seem to the basis for Sisvel's aggressive legal actions against SanDisk. The strange thing in all this, while the issue is still in German court and hotly disputed by SanDisk, is that all SanDisk's MP3 players at the stand at IFA have already been seized by the German authorities. Earlier this year I attended the ANGA Cable (CATV) trade show in Cologne, Germany, and there the Stand of Hyunday Digital which is selling STB's was completely stripped from all STBs on display two days in a row. Allegedly because MPEG license fees had not been paid for those boxes by that company. It seems like we have a trend here to put some serious thumbscrews on manufacturers that exibit at trade shows in Germany.
Any of the players supported by Rockbox will play Vorbis formats, if you run Rockbox:
http://www.rockbox.org/
I use it on my iRiver H340, and it's pretty good.
"We have 600 licensees and we have to protect their rights, and the rights of the patent holders," he added.
translated:
"We have 600 licensees and we have to cash in their money. We bought the patent because we had money and are utterly incapable of creating anything ourselves. We have to get as much money as we can get, as now we can still buy money with money thanks to this completely retarded patent system." he added.
"this post is hereby seized. present yourself to the nearest Gestapo office" or somesuch. You know, this is Google (Altavista?) language tools era. Ninguém tem desculpa para não entender algo porque está em outro idioma.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
While many still use mp3's in 2010 lossless music is starting to really catch on. Everyone has connections with a good amount more bandwidth, so downloading the much larger files isn't that much of a hassle anymore. Apples' iTunes started the trend around 2008 by heavily promoting its lossless codec and making the majority of its tracks available in it. It will even transcode from lossless to mp3 for your iPod. I have a feeling in a few more years mp3 is going to feel like tapes in respect to CD's.
Oh, and if anyone is curious about me, I work in law enforcement. I was sent back on the case of one of the most wanted time-criminals of 2010, John Titor.
Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
I've used Sandisk players now for several years and they are the most versatile player for the best price on the market. I just bought their new 8 gig flash memory model that plays video for myself and my daughter. They rock and I don't have to treat them like eggs when I ride my bike. I have had it with the misinterpretation of intellectual property killing innovation. It's time for more people to ignore stupid applications of IP. And NO COPYRIGHT OR PATENT AFTER THE INNOVATOR DIES. Period.
You are welcome on my lawn.
If your iPod or MP3 player does not already support Ogg Vorbis, then file a bugreport for it already. Get over the fact that Vorbis is Free codec, it's got excellent sound quality and compression.
Regardless of its technical merits, the MBAs, PHBs and other suits making the players are going avoid Vorbis simply because it is free unless 1) you point out examples like the seizure of players or 2) request Ogg Vorbis explicity. You can do both by filing a bug report.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
I didn't know that! Gotta check them out! ..
Talk about advertising.
Actually the idea was never to reward people just for creating new stuff, but for sharing the stuff they crated with the world. And it all went to pot when people were allowed (1) to set their own licencing fee and (2) to charge different licencing fees to different entities, or bar some entities altogether.
Anyway, pure mathematics is not created. It just exists. Zero existed before arabic numerals, even if there wasn't a way to write it; the same as fractions existed before there was a convenient way to write them, and irrational numbers exist even if they can't be represented exactly. Complex numbers existed before anyone had the idea for j.
Have a look at this kid's book for an easy-to-understand explanation of patent misuse.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Translation for those who don't speak German: This post is hereby confiscated. Report to the nearest Gestapo office immediately.
Error: password can't contain reverse spelling of ancient Chinese emperor
I'd be happy to introduce you to one: my sister.
Although autism is generally more prevalent in males (and there seems to be a biological reason for this) females can develop it - and typically when the do, it's BAD.
My sister's case is quite bad.
Oh - and not all autistic people are savants, either; most are completely without function.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
that's the price you pay for not being able to make it yourself.
Seems here that Sandisk was having no problem making it themselves.
Oh I get it, you think that this other company should just make money off of Sandisk's hard work. To each corporation according to their needs after all.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
All the "invisible hand" claptrap spouted by rabid "free-marketeers" makes me think they see the "free market" as some sort of religion. Indeed, most of these people hold up the "free market" higher than everything else, as something to be worshipped.
Damn tools...
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Alle deine codecs sind gehören uns!
If I stole your idea/process/blueprints and sold the resuling product how would you seek financial compensation? Sue me? But if a court has the power to compel payment, what is the difference between this and a government?
Not being a great believer in capitalism myself, I'm curious.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Karl Rove hasn't done anything to conservatism. Bushie is exactly what the Republicans have always been, a prime defender of corporations against competition.
Believing that a man should be rewarded for making something of merit, is a liberal concept.
I believe the concept of zero originated on the Indian sub-continent not with the arabs - that's just where the Europeans got it.
Also, but not useful in a western history discussion, the Myans also developed the concept.
Presumably you would be first to market, and since you developed the idea it would follow that you would have the greatest insight in developing and enhancing the product. By this way , you could continually inmprove your product, and you would always be first to market giving you an advantage that the "copycats" did not have. Of course, you might well have higher R&D costs, but that's what it take to be "the best". You would then be required to compete on continuous innovation and quality (and, of course, brand) with the other players in the market.
That doesn't mean you would win. Look at Oreos. They were the copy of Hydrox cookies. Sometimes the innovator doesn't win. Sunshine Biscuit, somehow, still survived.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
"How much are proprietary format licensing fees pushing up the cost of consumer goods?"
Usually less than the cost of hiring some folks to write a new, proprietary format which isn't compatible with anything else on the market, until you're wildly successful -- which you probably won't be if you don't have some compatibility with the standing market.
Dumb baiting question.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
According to mp3licensing.com, the royalty rate is 75 cents per device ($1.25 for the mp3Pro version). I have no idea of how much SanDisk's MP3 players cost or how many they've sold but I don't think an extra dollar in the price tag would have hurt their sales.
What if the algorithm were encoded INCOMPLETELY, since it is not the math described in the patent it should be non-infringing. The player probably already has a small amount of flash memory, the consumer "enables" the player by entering the missing pieces to complete the calculation and those entries are stored in flash. Would an end user be immune to patent issues to "construct" a device for personal use?
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
During this administration? Wow. That's quite an achievement.
So, should women get royalties on their work, or is a penis required? Are ideas "things of value or merit" that can be owned (i.e. denied to other people through force)? They didn't used to be.
You must be a conservative if you have the urge for vulgar language but try to hide it behind made-up words. Grow the fuck up.
P.S. I have a trademark on the word "Fuggin", please cease and desist all use of my valuable intellectual property.
That's pre 7-11 thinking....
The mp3 licensing problems will resolv since more and more people are finding out how much better ogg is compared to mp3, both in terms of sounds quality as well as licensing issues. Many portable music players already support ogg and once the manufacturers drop mp3 support and save on mp3 licensing fees, the prices of portable music players will come down quite a bit.
*AA also includes:
AA - Alchoholics Anonymous (since the * wildcard can also mean no characters)
AAAA - American Association of Advertising Agencies
and let's not forget
AAAAA - American Association Against Acronym Abuse
If you find any one of these things to be true, maybe take a moment to analyze your stance? If you find your first reaction to positive comments on Ogg to be one of anger, maybe do that analysis?
If there's anyone out there who dislikes Ogg and who isn't attached to MP3, it would be good to get your perspective. Please speak out.
It doesn't help that advocates of Ogg often have strong opinions about the values of using Ogg. But don't let another person's attitude deflect you from really thinking through Ogg's value for yourself. Having a chip-on-your-shoulder reaction is the essence of fanboyism.
The quality is comparable. The hardware/processing footprint is comparable. There are no technical downsides. (Don't correct me to tell me how Ogg is much better -- I'm understating the point for a reason.) Ogg detractors often get these points wrong. Unapologetically unresearched inaccuracy is another sign of fanboyism.
Adding Ogg to your hardware is easy enough -- there are over 100 models of portable player listed on just this page. So if you want to use Ogg, either as a manufacturer or a consumer, there's no problem. (If you want to keep using your old MP3s -- go ahead. Just file your new Ogg files alongside them.)
Unlike MP3, however, Ogg is public domain.
So, all things even, Ogg beats out MP3. So, even if Ogg weren't quite as good as MP3, it should be supported for the (lack of) licensing. You won't get shenanigans like what this article's about. You can implement your own software. You can build your own hardware without incrementing its cost by the royalties + insurance against litigation. (Well, likely you'll still be paying those for the other formats your player supports.) You can improve the format. You can distribute, sell, or stream Ogg files without liability.
The manufacturers support it and there are many communities using it. There is no reason to encode another MP3.
Ogg: highly recommended.
(Disclaimer: I personally don't use Ogg Vorbis much. My music's all lossless.)
Too bad Apple stonewalled this royally by implementing their proprietary ALAC lossless codec in Quicktime/iTunes instead of using the defacto Free standard of FLAC.
Some sony players that will only play their proprietary format, and probably a few more.
Waffles rock.
...So I kept shopping until I found an MP3 player that met all of my needs, including Ogg Vorbis support.
Good start. Wake me up when I need to replace the living room DVD player and my car. Both play CDR's full of MP3's. I haven't found replacement products to change these common denominators. The hardware decoder for the propritory format is already paid for.
Making the change will be about as easy as converting from gasoline to compressed natural gas as the common fuel for my car, lawn mower, portable generator, camp stove, camp lantern, chain saw, weed eater, etc. They all run on gas. A couple run on gas mixed with 2 cycle oil. I can get a car conversion to run on compressed natural gas, but it will take a very long time if ever to convert completely from the liquid format to the high pressure format. MP3 to Ogg has the same mountain in the way to universal conversion. There are a few items that will run on CNG and there are some items whick will run on it, but for the rest of us, the other just works even though it has a high and rising cost. Devices and content are the easiest to find in common formats. At the moment that is gasoline and MP3's. Someday MP3's and gasoline may be hard to come by. At that time there will be format wars. Open Ogg, Open horses, propane, Flac, Diesel, WMA, electric, Atrac, Quicktime, Lead acid, Ni-MAH, Lithium, LNG, CNG, or some new format. The easy to duplicate format Ogg and horses both have issues with obtaining materials to power them and are not found in common use in homes across the world.
Pardon me while find hay to feed my horse and Ogg files from a legal store from one of the major lables.
Shell, Texaco, BP, Arco, etc do not sell hay or compressed natural gas at at station near me, and Samsung, Sandisk, Kenwood, Sony, Apple, Rio, Creative, Sanyo, Toshiba, and etc do not sell Ogg players. The above sell gasoline and MP3 capable devices.
The format war has a long way to go.
The truth shall set you free!
Read the fucking article:
It's up to the courts to decide.
You are biased, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. You wouldn't care. You're frothing at the mouth because someone doesn't think your pet format is the best in all cases.
You lose, goodbye. Don't bother responding.