On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 01:13:02AM +0100, Matthew William Solloway Bell wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 11:37:39PM +0100, Matthew William Solloway Bell wrote: > > > The packages libxine1, ffmpeg, include libfaad*, libx264* or another > > > codec which implement the MPEG-4 Advanced Audio Coding and Advanced > > > Video Coding standards. Unfortunately, these are patent encumbered in at > > > least the USA, and many other countries. To distribute code implementing > > > any of these patents, a license is required[1], assuming that the > > > claimed patents are valid. This license requires signing an agreement > > > and the payment of royalties, which hasn't been done AFAIK, and is > > > contrary to policy. > > > There is evidence of prior attempts of enforcement, specifically against > > > FAAD at AudioCoding.com[2]. > > This appears to refer to enforcement of patents covering encoding using the > > codecs in question. Do libxine1 and ffmpeg implement encoding of these, or > > just decoding? Is there a history of enforcement of patents on decoding of > > the codecs in question? > Hmmm, I think I have missed something; what makes you draw this > conclusion? AudioCoding.com has removed all binaries including those > related to decoding. I see no reference to encoding only in [2]. The > licensing authorities in [1] have licenses that cover decoders. I did > look at their patent portfolio, but is was brief and shallow. I'm having > a closer look now. Sorry, what I mean is that the AudioCoding.com case involved a work that implemented both encoding and decoding, therefore we can't infer from it that patents which apply only to decoders are being actively enforced. > My apologies, that should read 'It does not appear to me that..." which > is based on the conclusion of the previous sentence. I was rather hoping > someone would be able to support or contradict this. Regarding my > comments on 'prior art', I did not consider 'prior art' to be > semantically identical to 'no inventive step'; however, I considered > both to be sufficient condition to deem the patents invalid. Of course, > I'm not a patent lawyer. Yeah, they're not exactly semantically identical, but a claim that there is no inventive step depends on showing that there is prior art, and the ffii page makes assertions about specific prior art in existence. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature