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
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.
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.
"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.
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!