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?"
It's not the file format that's patented.
The problem is that the patents are for the actual compression and decompression algorithms. These can and often are patented - MP3 is not an isolated case. Here's a list of the patents involved.
The whole thing's actually quite a mess, with several different companies claiming patents on bits and pieces of the codec. This is one of the reasons why you don't usually see MP3 codecs in the free Linux distributions as standard.
The problem for SanDisk is that they're a US-based company, and the US allows software patents. Sisvel would struggle to be able to pull this on an EU-based company.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
--
Arizona Web Design
"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."
First of all, you ovbiously didn't RTFA. This has nothing to do with Fraunhofer.
Second of all, Fraunhofer has always enforced their patent from day one. Back in ~1997, when mp3's first started to gain popularity with digital audio enthusiats, several third party encoders popped up, which were based on Fraunhofer's reference source code. Shortly after their release, Fraunhofer would contact the makers of these encoders, inform them of their patent, and ask for royalties. As a result, the encoders would suddenly disappear from the makers' websites with a message stating "Sorry, I can't distibute my encoder any more, because Fraunhofer wants royalties."
mp3 took off because it filled a need, it was the best thing available at filling that need at the time - not because of a submarine patent. Early commercial encoders, like music match jukebox and mp3pro paid royalties to Fraunhofer from day one.
If you're curious, I have a 'boneyard' of retro mp3 encoders on my site with a few of these extinct encoders.*
http://www.toadlife.net/stuff/retro_mp3_encoders/
*Please don't sue me Fraunhofer.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
No, it won't be more free. The Ogg format is already as free and open as it is possible to get. From Vorbis.com:
There is some reference software suppied by Vorbis So MP3 may become AS free as Ogg, but Ogg is already available under the most liberal conditions possible. Licensing restrictions are not an excuse for not using it."I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Yes.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Germany's courts and officials are noted for this kind of thing. Very easy there to get somebody's show booth shut down with scant allegations of trademark or copyright infringement.
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.
This whole area is pretty hazy. In Europe, the MP3 patent shouldn't apply. In the US, if you look at the supposed MP3 patent it doesn't mention MP3 in the slightest. What it describes is a way of compressing a music file, which of course, has broad applications. The only reason why silly companies looking for some easy money choose to pick on MP3 is that the MP3 format is the most ubiquitous.
"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
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.
novel algorithm for decoding MP3. Such a thing, if it existed (which it probably cannot)
Actually, novel algorithms exist for both encoding and decoding. It's then believable that Sandisk built their MP3 players without any Frauenhoffer code.
This is more like the .GIF debacle - where a company claims responsibility for all code that creates or reads the format they designed. It's obviously bullshit, but apparently Frauenhoffer don't take US victories for free-and-open use as precedent.
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
Obligatory Rockbox plug: my iPod 5G (75MHz ARM processor, btw) plays OGG just fine w/Rockbox.