Many people (including theora developers) close their eyes and cover their ears, pretending it's patent free.
Looking prevents you from presenting both the defenses of obviousness or "there's only one logical way to do it." It's called a "clean-room implementation". It's the reason your computer is so cheap - because without a clean-room bios, PCs wouldn't have become commodity items.
A famous example is that of Columbia Data Products who built the first clone of an IBM computer through a clean room implementation of its BIOS. Another is VTech's successful clones of the Apple II ROMs for the Laser 128, the only computer model, among dozens of Apple II compatibles, which survived litigation brought by Apple Computer. ReactOS is an open source operating system made from clean room reverse engineered components of Windows
There is one other threat to all of the closed/patented codecs that nobody's mentioned yet...
Increasing bandwidth and computing power...
10 years from now we won't need codecs. We'll be able to decompose images into photo-realistic vector graphics, send them over 1gb/s connections to the home, and recreate them in resolutions that make HD look like crap.
Heck, we had graphical bulletin boards that did almost the same thing in 640x480x256 back when modems were 1200 baud and 8mhz cpus. Jobs has to achieve lock-in this decade or it doesn't happen ever. And the iPad is not the device to do it. Hitching his hopes on an alliance with dead-tree media was a mistake.
P.S.=> Whatever the case may be, my attorney's being forwarded this information just so you are aware of that as well. He is on retainer each year, & I get my money's worth from him each year for said retainer... he is advising me to advise you of this, & also what this is about, etc. apk
Two quick points for APK for the next time you try to make it sound like you have some legal beagle eagle scout at hand:
Retainers don't do what you seem to think they do. It's not like paying admission to an "all-you-can-eat" - you still are charged for each billable hour against the retainer;
No lawyer would be "advising me to advise you of this, & also what this is about, etc." - he'd tell you to shut your pie-hole before you dig yourself a new rectum on your own.
A real winner on "Lets Sue Teh Innert00bs", for sure. Then again, anyone who thinks that a hosts file is anything but minor protection from threats is probably posting from a r00ted computer - oh wait - that's the "400 hz I has 2 viruses a month computer wunderkind" - I'd really like to see a video of someone posting to/. with those 300 baud acoustic couplers (I think they went as low as 120 baud).
Clone acts more like a woman than a man in my opinion
... do you have something against women? Let me guess, your mother didn't change your diapers often enough, or liked your brother better than you? And all the girls in school weny "ewww!" every time you passed them, so you stopped going to school? But one of these days you're going to teach them all a lesson... because no woman is going to tell Mr. Anonymous Coward that he's a chi-chi-chicken!
if you need more proof i am writing to you on a 400 hertz computer and i run with ease. i do not get 200++ viruses and spy ware a month as i use to. now i am lucky if i get 1 or 2 viruses a month.
On a 400 hertz computer. That's some antique you got going there. How's the supply of paper punch tape holding up? Need some more green bar fan-fold for the console?
If you can get a couple of viruses a month to run on a 400 hz computer, that's something we all want to see. Frankly, even the cheapest 4k 8-bit computers from 25-30 years ago ran around 1 mh (or double that with the right POKE command).
But getting "only" one or two viruses a month is nothing to brag about. I got zero this millennium.
So tell us more, "Mr. 400 hz 2 viruses a month club charter member."
BTW - use of a hosts file to avoid malware is deprecated because it's slower than other solutions, and no longer works. Your 2 viruses a month is proof of that.:-p
Still waiting for you to explain how someone can be defamed if they're anonymous.
BTW - if you're defending the total moron who posted this:
P.S.=> Whatever the case may be, my attorney's being forwarded this information just so you are aware of that as well. He is on retainer each year, & I get my money's worth from him each year for said retainer... he is advising me to advise you of this, & also what this is about, etc. apk
... it's such low-grade poop I wouldn't even call it B.S.... more like gnat droppings.
So tell us the REAL story. Did you sell your Ritalin to another kid in school? Or is the lithium not working again?
Here we go - someone who doesn't understand the difference between an open standard and a free/libre standard. For example wrt ffmpeg and patent infringement
=====
Patent Mini-FAQ
A lot of legal questions surrounding patents arise when discussing multimedia technology. This mini-FAQ attempts to address these issues. Note that much of this discussion is based on precedent, or what has happened in the past under similar circumstances. Very little consideration is given to what could happen. If you use your imagination, you can visualize any dire scenario and cease doing any productive work.
Q: Does FFmpeg use patented algorithms?
A: We do not know, we are not lawyers so we are not qualified to answer this. Also we have never read patents to implement any part of FFmpeg, so even if we were qualified we could not answer it as we do not know what is patented. Furthermore the sheer number of software patents makes it impossible to read them all so no one (lawyer or not) could answer such a question with a definite no, those who do lie. What we do know is that various standards FFmpeg supports contain vague hints that any conforming implementation might be subject to some patent rights in some jurisdictions, examples for such statements are:
For H.264:
ITU draws attention to the possibility that the practice or implementation of this Recommendation may involve the use of a claimed Intellectual Property Right. ITU takes no position concerning the evidence, validity or applicability of claimed Intellectual Property Rights, whether asserted by ITU members or others outside of the Recommendation development process.
And for MPEG-4:
The user's attention is called to the possibility that, for some of the processes specified in this part of ISO/IEC 14496, conformance with this specification may require use of an invention covered by patent rights. By publication of this part of ISO/IEC 14496, no position is taken with respect to the validity of this claim or of any patent rights in connection therewith.
Q: Is it safe to use such patented algorithms?
A: Patent laws vary wildly between jurisdictions, and in many countries patents on algorithms are not recognized. Plus the use of patents to prevent the usage of a format or codec on a specific operating system or together with specific other software might violate antitrust laws. So whether you are safe or not depends on where you live and how judges interpret the law in your jurisdiction.
Q: Bottom line: Should I be worried about patent issues if I use FFmpeg?
A: Are you a private user working with FFmpeg for your own personal purposes? If so, there is remarkably little reason to be concerned. Are you using FFmpeg in a commercial software product? Read on to the next question...
Q: Is it perfectly alright to incorporate the whole FFmpeg core into my own commercial product?
A: You might have a problem here. There have been cases where companies have used FFmpeg in their products. These companies found out that once you start trying to make money from patented technologies, the owners of the patents will come after their licensing fees. Notably, MPEG LA is vigilant and diligent about collecting for MPEG-related technologies.
=====
UTI are the people who actually develop the spec, the ITU-T Video Coding Experts Group .
Bottom line - if you want to implement h.264, be prepared to pay. But don't take anyone's word for it... go ask them yourself. Ask if they (Apple, etc.) will give you permission to make a free version of an h.264 decoder that you can distribute for free around the world without paying a license fee. Tell them why YOU should be the first exception (x264 doesn't have theoir permission).
The only thing that end-usersdon't need a license for is to watch streaming video on the Internet (until 2015) - but the producers/streamers still need a license.
First, allow me to introduce you to the <p> and <br> tags. They are your friends if you want to look a bit less retarded on the net. Learn to use them. Even a dummy like you who relies on notepad should be able to do that much.
Otherwise, your posts will continue to resemble a puddle of drool. Your thoughts will continue to run together, soft and runny, inchoate, like post-burrito diarrhea.
Now, back to "a more serious note" as you put it - there are several very good, serious operating systems out there - but Windows is not, never has been, and never will be, one of them, for the simple reason that a fish rots from the head.
And contrary to the the balance (or should I say, imbalance) of your logorrhea, there has been no "ac being libeled here by clone54321" - as I pointed out, it's not legally possible to defame someone without identifying them, so you can't libel an anonymous poster.
Besides, I've read the thread with the email threats of legal action, and they were obviously empty, kind of like the writers' head. But that's just my opinion (because I'm being both diplomatic AND charitable in my phrasing:-)
No, I didn't miss it - I think that the minority (and it is a minority according to the post) who are complaining about their own machines are a bunch of whiny babies. Let them get smartphones to check their myspace accounts or play farmville or tweet.
Even the article says that most of these machines were "purchased with hospital funding." Their network, their hardware, their rules.
I know people don't read articles, but now we have proof people don't read summaries.
... and I can't believe that, after all these posts, NOBODY has said "... but I run linux/bsd/plan9, you insensitive clod!"
You shouldn't be checking your hospital email with your home computer anyway. IF they want you to read something at home, they should be sending it to your home email - this way it's understood that it's not sensitive.
Does your momma know you talk like that to people who try to play nice?
Libel (or more accurately, defamation - libel and slander are actually different forms of defamation - which you would know if you had a lawyer, but don't let that stop you... ) has certain requirements, and clone54321's postings don't meet the standard. While the truth is no longer an absolute defense against libel, it's a pretty good one, as is the defense of opinion. "Statements of opinion or pure opinion are not actionable." I think you're an idiot. That's my opinion, publicly stated. It's not actionable, because (1) I think you're acting like an idiot, and (2) I'm entitled to express my opinion, (3) I'm not doing so in a "false light", (4) it's in the public interest that whiny idiots be called on it, (5) consent - by posting here on slashdot, you have consented to the community norms, which include labeling people who act like you idiots.
The LZW compression algorithm on which GIF is based, was covered by a U.S. patent 4,558,302 owned by Unisys. When Compuserve first developed the GIF they did not know that LZW was covered by a patent.
Before 1994, Unisys was not aware that GIF used LZW. In December 1994, after Unisys discovered that GIF used the LZW, they announced that they would be seeking royalties on that patent; all commercial programs capable of producing GIF files would be required to pay a license fee to Unisys.
By this time, GIF was in such widespread use that most companies producing these programs had little choice but to pay. The desire for a format with fewer legal restrictions (as well as fewer technical restrictions such as the number of colours) led to the development of the PNG format, which has become the third common image format on the Web.
In late August 1999, Unisys terminated its royalty-free LZW technology licenses for free software and non-commercial proprietary software and even for individual users of unlicensed programs, prompting the League for Programming Freedom to launch the Burn All GIFs campaign to inform the public of the alternatives.
On June 20, 2003, the United States patent on the LZW algorithm expired, which means that Unisys and Compuserve can no longer collect royalties for use of the GIF format in that country. Those bothered with the patent enforcement dubbed this day GIF Liberation Day. The equivalent patents in Europe and Japan expired on June 18 and June 20 2004 respectively, with the Canada patent following on July 7.
So, "someone's gonna pay."
The owners of h.264 have already said they won't allow an open-source implementation that is freely downloadable without respect to the number of end users. Once you pass "n" users, you HAVE to pay the licensing fees. Also, since you can't pass along a copy of the software to other users, it's not compatible with either the GPL or the BSD licenses.
So your "point" actually backs up mine. Have a nice day.
When Adobe started with the video-on-the-web thing, there were no other decent, easy alternatives. So again, how is it their fault that people adopted something that made it both easy and possible to do what people wanted to do.
Without Adobe, youtube wouldn't exist. Okay, bad example - the world would probably be a better place if youtube didn't exist - but how is it Adobe's fault that people en masse adopted their product to do something that nobody else could do - and on multiple platforms?
Lets hear what the alternatives were... oh wait, there was only mpeg-2, which required a LOT more bandwidth - not very practical when most people were still on dial-up.
you do know that JPEG, GIF, and MP3 are all patent-owned standards too, right? Funny that they are all supported by browsers and are rather de facto standards in the "proprietary web".
You really need to do your research.
The GIF patent is long expired. Turn in your geek card - everyone who knows pretty much anything about the patent wars knows that. That alone shows you're talking trash.
Or you could try again. For example, show where the licensing authority says it's okay to make an open-source free version. Oh, you can't - because they refused!
You can't defame someone who is anonymous. You can libel an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation. "Anonymous Coward" is none of those.
Instead of hiding behind the "Anonymous Coward" label (which seems to be rather appropriate, n'est pas?), why not take two seconds and get an account. Suggestion: If you want to have any credibility, don't use some throwaway freemail address, like cowards and spammers and malware writers do.
Or you could keep on ranting about how "Anonymous Coward" is being defamed. I'm sure there are plenty of other "Anonymous Cowards" who will, tongue in cheek, say "I resemble that remark!"
The problem is that anyone who threatens to sue and then doesn't follow through has zero credibility. Posting as an A.C. also starts with a score of zero credibility... that adds up to Double Zero credibility. The Double Zero ( oo ) looks a lot like the symbol for infinity, so to most people it probably looks like you score $_INFINITE_MINUS_CREDIBILITY. Either that or NaN.
About what you'd expect from someone who makes spyware...
... or programs so badly written that they look like spyware...
... or spyware masquerading as a program that's so badly written that it "just accidentally looks like spyware", but that would probably be giving someone with $_INFINITE_MINUS_CREDIBILITY too much credit.
... unless it's really a s00per sekret plan that... nah, couldn't be... nobody's THAT stupid...
Of course, that brings on the whole question of "is it even possible to defame someone who posts under the name "Anonymous Coward"? Methinks not - after all, you're... ummm... you know... anonymous. So you don't fall into the groups that can be defamed/libeled/slandered/whatever - an identifiable individual, business, product, group, government, or nation.;-p
It states clearly that it only applies to stuff that has been misplaced - not stuff where the owner has been contacted and has then abandoned;
It states clearly that it only applies to items with a value of over $100.00, and since, at the time of the misplacement nobody knew what it really was, there was no way to ascribe a value to it, and certainly, since it looked like a knock-off, and was then bricked, not over $100.00.
Slashdot Mirror
Looking prevents you from presenting both the defenses of obviousness or "there's only one logical way to do it." It's called a "clean-room implementation". It's the reason your computer is so cheap - because without a clean-room bios, PCs wouldn't have become commodity items.
There is one other threat to all of the closed/patented codecs that nobody's mentioned yet ...
Increasing bandwidth and computing power ...
10 years from now we won't need codecs. We'll be able to decompose images into photo-realistic vector graphics, send them over 1gb/s connections to the home, and recreate them in resolutions that make HD look like crap.
Heck, we had graphical bulletin boards that did almost the same thing in 640x480x256 back when modems were 1200 baud and 8mhz cpus. Jobs has to achieve lock-in this decade or it doesn't happen ever. And the iPad is not the device to do it. Hitching his hopes on an alliance with dead-tree media was a mistake.
You forgot to ad that there's nothing to protect users of h264 from OTHER patent claims.
And theora's response was the exact right one to take.
BTW - a lot of the world doesn't buy into software patents. Let's see if the Supremes get it right with Bilski.
The sock-puppetry is pretty lame, but it gives me the opportunity to rub in that you cannot libel an anonymous poster :-)
Plus the whole "I'm talking to my lawyers" bit is funny.
Plus, there's in this thread
Two quick points for APK for the next time you try to make it sound like you have some legal beagle eagle scout at hand:
A real winner on "Lets Sue Teh Innert00bs", for sure. Then again, anyone who thinks that a hosts file is anything but minor protection from threats is probably posting from a r00ted computer - oh wait - that's the "400 hz I has 2 viruses a month computer wunderkind" - I'd really like to see a video of someone posting to /. with those 300 baud acoustic couplers (I think they went as low as 120 baud).
Thanks for the heads-up. How have I missed all this stupidity for so long :-)
Chicken.
On a 400 hertz computer. That's some antique you got going there. How's the supply of paper punch tape holding up? Need some more green bar fan-fold for the console?
If you can get a couple of viruses a month to run on a 400 hz computer, that's something we all want to see. Frankly, even the cheapest 4k 8-bit computers from 25-30 years ago ran around 1 mh (or double that with the right POKE command).
But getting "only" one or two viruses a month is nothing to brag about. I got zero this millennium.
So tell us more, "Mr. 400 hz 2 viruses a month club charter member."
BTW - use of a hosts file to avoid malware is deprecated because it's slower than other solutions, and no longer works. Your 2 viruses a month is proof of that. :-p
Still waiting for you to explain how someone can be defamed if they're anonymous.
BTW - if you're defending the total moron who posted this:
So tell us the REAL story. Did you sell your Ritalin to another kid in school? Or is the lithium not working again?
Here we go - someone who doesn't understand the difference between an open standard and a free/libre standard. For example wrt ffmpeg and patent infringement
=====
Patent Mini-FAQ
A lot of legal questions surrounding patents arise when discussing multimedia technology. This mini-FAQ attempts to address these issues. Note that much of this discussion is based on precedent, or what has happened in the past under similar circumstances. Very little consideration is given to what could happen. If you use your imagination, you can visualize any dire scenario and cease doing any productive work.
Q: Does FFmpeg use patented algorithms?
A: We do not know, we are not lawyers so we are not qualified to answer this. Also we have never read patents to implement any part of FFmpeg, so even if we were qualified we could not answer it as we do not know what is patented. Furthermore the sheer number of software patents makes it impossible to read them all so no one (lawyer or not) could answer such a question with a definite no, those who do lie. What we do know is that various standards FFmpeg supports contain vague hints that any conforming implementation might be subject to some patent rights in some jurisdictions, examples for such statements are:
For H.264:
ITU draws attention to the possibility that the practice or implementation of this Recommendation may involve the use of a claimed Intellectual Property Right. ITU takes no position concerning the evidence, validity or applicability of claimed Intellectual Property Rights, whether asserted by ITU members or others outside of the Recommendation development process.
And for MPEG-4:
The user's attention is called to the possibility that, for some of the processes specified in this part of ISO/IEC 14496, conformance with this specification may require use of an invention covered by patent rights. By publication of this part of ISO/IEC 14496, no position is taken with respect to the validity of this claim or of any patent rights in connection therewith.
Q: Is it safe to use such patented algorithms?
A: Patent laws vary wildly between jurisdictions, and in many countries patents on algorithms are not recognized. Plus the use of patents to prevent the usage of a format or codec on a specific operating system or together with specific other software might violate antitrust laws. So whether you are safe or not depends on where you live and how judges interpret the law in your jurisdiction.
Q: Bottom line: Should I be worried about patent issues if I use FFmpeg?
A: Are you a private user working with FFmpeg for your own personal purposes? If so, there is remarkably little reason to be concerned. Are you using FFmpeg in a commercial software product? Read on to the next question...
Q: Is it perfectly alright to incorporate the whole FFmpeg core into my own commercial product?
A: You might have a problem here. There have been cases where companies have used FFmpeg in their products. These companies found out that once you start trying to make money from patented technologies, the owners of the patents will come after their licensing fees. Notably, MPEG LA is vigilant and diligent about collecting for MPEG-related technologies.
===== UTI are the people who actually develop the spec, the ITU-T Video Coding Experts Group .
Bottom line - if you want to implement h.264, be prepared to pay. But don't take anyone's word for it ... go ask them yourself. Ask if they (Apple, etc.) will give you permission to make a free version of an h.264 decoder that you can distribute for free around the world without paying a license fee. Tell them why YOU should be the first exception (x264 doesn't have theoir permission).
The only thing that end-users don't need a license for is to watch streaming video on the Internet (until 2015) - but the producers/streamers still need a license.
First, allow me to introduce you to the <p> and <br> tags. They are your friends if you want to look a bit less retarded on the net. Learn to use them. Even a dummy like you who relies on notepad should be able to do that much.
Otherwise, your posts will continue to resemble a puddle of drool. Your thoughts will continue to run together, soft and runny, inchoate, like post-burrito diarrhea.
Now, back to "a more serious note" as you put it - there are several very good, serious operating systems out there - but Windows is not, never has been, and never will be, one of them, for the simple reason that a fish rots from the head.
And contrary to the the balance (or should I say, imbalance) of your logorrhea, there has been no "ac being libeled here by clone54321" - as I pointed out, it's not legally possible to defame someone without identifying them, so you can't libel an anonymous poster.
Besides, I've read the thread with the email threats of legal action, and they were obviously empty, kind of like the writers' head. But that's just my opinion (because I'm being both diplomatic AND charitable in my phrasing :-)
No, I didn't miss it - I think that the minority (and it is a minority according to the post) who are complaining about their own machines are a bunch of whiny babies. Let them get smartphones to check their myspace accounts or play farmville or tweet.
unisys only went after the programs that produced gifs. mpeg-la wants/requires end-user equipment and software to be licensed.
Easy fix from the distress(oo) manpage: /sbin/distressd stop.
#
# stopping distressd
#.distressd stopped
Even the article says that most of these machines were "purchased with hospital funding." Their network, their hardware, their rules.
I know people don't read articles, but now we have proof people don't read summaries.
You shouldn't be checking your hospital email with your home computer anyway. IF they want you to read something at home, they should be sending it to your home email - this way it's understood that it's not sensitive.
Does your momma know you talk like that to people who try to play nice?
Libel (or more accurately, defamation - libel and slander are actually different forms of defamation - which you would know if you had a lawyer, but don't let that stop you ... ) has certain requirements, and clone54321's postings don't meet the standard. While the truth is no longer an absolute defense against libel, it's a pretty good one, as is the defense of opinion. "Statements of opinion or pure opinion are not actionable." I think you're an idiot. That's my opinion, publicly stated. It's not actionable, because (1) I think you're acting like an idiot, and (2) I'm entitled to express my opinion, (3) I'm not doing so in a "false light", (4) it's in the public interest that whiny idiots be called on it, (5) consent - by posting here on slashdot, you have consented to the community norms, which include labeling people who act like you idiots.
clone54321 benefits from the same defenses.
Hi, idiot! Or sock-puppet. Or whatever.
Lots of blather from an AC. Must be spring coming, people getting their ACs out in anticipation of the warm summer days.
Who is this "I"? All I see is some anonymous troll accusing someone else of trolling ...
Here, let me fix that for you. Exchange servers are KNOWN to stall and what stops it? Not using Windows.
At least get an account so we can tell your different sock-puppets apart, mkay thx.
Once Unisys found out that GIFs used their patented LZW algorithm, they DID require payments from companies producing software that generated GIFs:
So, "someone's gonna pay."
The owners of h.264 have already said they won't allow an open-source implementation that is freely downloadable without respect to the number of end users. Once you pass "n" users, you HAVE to pay the licensing fees. Also, since you can't pass along a copy of the software to other users, it's not compatible with either the GPL or the BSD licenses.
So your "point" actually backs up mine. Have a nice day.
Without Adobe, youtube wouldn't exist. Okay, bad example - the world would probably be a better place if youtube didn't exist - but how is it Adobe's fault that people en masse adopted their product to do something that nobody else could do - and on multiple platforms?
Lets hear what the alternatives were ... oh wait, there was only mpeg-2, which required a LOT more bandwidth - not very practical when most people were still on dial-up.
You really need to do your research.
The GIF patent is long expired. Turn in your geek card - everyone who knows pretty much anything about the patent wars knows that. That alone shows you're talking trash.
Or you could try again. For example, show where the licensing authority says it's okay to make an open-source free version. Oh, you can't - because they refused!
You can't defame someone who is anonymous. You can libel an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation. "Anonymous Coward" is none of those.
Instead of hiding behind the "Anonymous Coward" label (which seems to be rather appropriate, n'est pas?), why not take two seconds and get an account. Suggestion: If you want to have any credibility, don't use some throwaway freemail address, like cowards and spammers and malware writers do.
Or you could keep on ranting about how "Anonymous Coward" is being defamed. I'm sure there are plenty of other "Anonymous Cowards" who will, tongue in cheek, say "I resemble that remark!"
The problem is that anyone who threatens to sue and then doesn't follow through has zero credibility. Posting as an A.C. also starts with a score of zero credibility ... that adds up to Double Zero credibility. The Double Zero ( oo ) looks a lot like the symbol for infinity, so to most people it probably looks like you score $_INFINITE_MINUS_CREDIBILITY. Either that or NaN.
About what you'd expect from someone who makes spyware ...
Of course, that brings on the whole question of "is it even possible to defame someone who posts under the name "Anonymous Coward"? Methinks not - after all, you're ... ummm ... you know ... anonymous. So you don't fall into the groups that can be defamed/libeled/slandered/whatever - an identifiable individual, business, product, group, government, or nation. ;-p
(cue Bugs Bunny saying "What a maroon!")
of course not - h.264 is a good way to strike back at open source. After all, it's got oodles of patents.
Figure it out:
html will become the new proprietary web. No thanks.
If anything should be killed off, it should be the "web browser as platform" meme.
It states clearly that it only applies to stuff that has been misplaced - not stuff where the owner has been contacted and has then abandoned;
It states clearly that it only applies to items with a value of over $100.00, and since, at the time of the misplacement nobody knew what it really was, there was no way to ascribe a value to it, and certainly, since it looked like a knock-off, and was then bricked, not over $100.00.
Not my fault you can't read.
In other news, Microsoft and Apple announce a new search engine licensing deal.