Re: mp3 encoding patents.
On Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 12:23:21PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> > We would have a mirroring problem in any case, but that would still not
> > rule out hosting them in (and for) countries that don't allow these
> > kinds of patents.
>
> AFAIK the MP3 compression function isn't protected, the psychoacustic
> model they use is (represented by the tables). lame has its own
> psychacustic model, so it should be safe to use and package.
You might be right about that, but I wouldn't necessarily bet on that. A
patent must include basic information about how the process works. AFAIK,
theirs does but I do not recall to what extent they describe it. Usually
you want to keep patents vague and generic so you have room to move around
within your own design and still be covered by your own patent (and to
prevent clones from being able to skirt your monopoly..)
IFF their patent includes their psychacustic model in enough detail that
it describes their model (only) and not lame's, lame could be freely
uploaded to main.
> > Oh, and of course IANAL.
>
> Me neither.
Three for three.
--
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3
Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org/) 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC
The QuakeForge Project (http://quakeforge.net/) 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3
> > But IANAL, of course.
>
> IANAL either. My son is, but if I asked him I might get an answer I
> wouldn't want to hear.
"Here's my invoice." ? =D
Reply to: