Re: XMMS and the new MP3 patent terms
On 29.08.2002 11:25:11 MKolb wrote:
> On 29.08.2002 11:22:41 Hans Ekbrand wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 09:40:27AM +0100, Pavel Bradut Boghita wrote:
> > > How then, can someone patent code which has been around and used for
> > > quite a while I just don't get it.
> > AFAIK it's not the code that is patented (Fraunhofer has licensed code
> > that one can use if one pays for it, but that is not the problem here,
> > since there is GPL encoders/decoders available) , but the MP3 audio
> > compression concept, i.e. that particular technique (a high level
> > algorithm, if I understand these things correct) to transform and
> > compress raw audio samples to mp3-files.
> And it has been patented a while ago.
> There was only a kind license which allowed the free personal usage.
> Now this part with free usage is deleted. (source: online it-news-site)
And now a statement:
"Statement from Thomson Multimedia, mp3 Licensing
In a posting appearing Tuesday August 27, 2002 on the Web site
'slashdot.org', an individual cited a change in the mp3 license fee
structure of Thomson and Fraunhofer. The writer of the post apparently
misread the mp3 licensing conditions, as Thomson's mp3 licensing policy
has not experienced any change.
To clarify, since the beginning of our mp3 licensing program in 1995,
Thomson has never charged a per unit royalty for freely distributed
software decoders. For commercially sold decoders -- primarily hardware
mp3 players -- the per-unit royalty has always been in place since the
beginning of the program. Therefore, there is no change in our licensing
policy and we continue to believe that the royalty fees of .75 cents per
mp3 player (on average selling over $200 dollars) has no measurable impact
on the consumer experience."
So there are no license fees for free software and the whole discussion
has no base.