RE: MP3 decoder packaged with XMMS
There is no cost to Xiph for copying me on these. Jack and Monty are
well aware of the legal environment in which they are operating. Please
do not feel that it is necessary to remove me from this.
Tom
Thomas B. Rosedale
Browne Rosedale & Lanouette LLP
31 St. James Avenue, Suite 850
Boston, MA 02116
trosedale@brllegal.com
Main: (617) 399-6931
Direct: (617) 399-6935
Fax: (617) 399-6930
This email message and any attachments are confidential and may be
attorney-client privileged. If you are not the intended recipient,
please notify the sender immediately by telephone or email and destroy
all copies of this message and any attachments.
**************************************
IRS Circular 230 Notice:
To comply with requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we
advise you that any U.S. federal tax advice included in this
communication, including any attachments, is not intended or written to
be used, and cannot be used, to avoid any U.S. federal tax penalties or
to promote, market or recommend to another party any tax related matters
addressed herein.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael K. Edwards [mailto:m.k.edwards@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 9:39 PM
To: Jack Moffitt; monty@xiph.org
Cc: MJ Ray; debian-legal@lists.debian.org; Tom Rosedale; Daniel James;
Free Ekanayaka
Subject: Re: MP3 decoder packaged with XMMS
Thanks very much to Mr. Moffitt for weighing in!
On 7/15/05, Jack Moffitt <jack@xiph.org> wrote:
> Just a quick note on this thread. Time seems to have erased the
memory
> of Thompson going after everyone. 8hz-enc, bladeenc, lame, and many
> other projects have shut down (from cease and desist letters) or
refuse
> to distribute binaries because the MP3 suite of patents _is_ actively
> enforced. Try going out and finding unlicensed implementations
outside
> the Free Software and Open Source worlds. That out of the way, I will
> address the issues raised below.
That's entirely consistent with my (much less informed) understanding
of the history. It would be very interesting to know whether the
statement at http://ballsome.org/index.php/news/100 reflects their
present policy, and if so whether it would offer some degree of
equitable-estoppel-based safe harbor for distributors who can
demonstrate substantial non-infringing uses as a defense against
contributory infringement. There's no shame, and potentially much
advantage, in providing cross-conversion tools between a genuinely
free format and the current market leader.
> I don't believe there are wavelet transforms in Ogg Vorbis. These are
> planned for some future incompatible update.
Can you point me to a brief but technical summary of some of the Ogg
Vorbis codecs? I would be curious to compare them against the MP3
techniques, about which I know at least a little bit.
> Before we released Ogg Vorbis beta 1, we did indeed hire a patent
> specializing attorney to go over the MP3 suite of patents. He only
> thought it necessary to issue a formal opinion on a single one of
these
> patents. We were advised by him, and other attorney's, that the
> specifics of this opinion could not be divulged publically. Since
that
> time (around 2000,2001 I believe), I believe several companies have
also
> had lawyers look over this issue. RedHat ships Ogg Vorbis, and they
are
> obviously aware of these patent problems due to their removal of MP3
> related software, so I assume they made this decision based on sound
> legal advice. I don't believe anyone is going to publically share
their
> findings any more than we have for the same reasons our lawyer
original
> gave.
That's understandable. Any chance you could at least identify which
patent warranted a formal opinion?
> New patents come up all the time. No one can afford to keep track of
> them all, or to have attorney's issue legal opinions on anything
> related. We have done informal, but educated, analysis on many
patents
> that others have brought to our attention, and never found anything
> worth troubling a lawyer over. Also, we originally intended the
> patent-free part of our software, so we based many algorithms on old,
> widely published results, and avoided many methods that would lead to
> patent trouble.
Can you enlarge at all on your approach to "duty of due care"? I have
only recently run across Knorr-Bremse and am ignorant of how this
works in practice when the patents are flying thick and fast.
> Many large corporations ship Ogg Vorbis with their products, including
> Microsoft, RealNetworks, EA Games, and many more. There are plenty of
> billion dollar companies to go after for infringement, should
> infringement actually be occuring due to Ogg Vorbis. The fact the
none
> of these companies has been, to anyone's knowledge, threatened with
> litigation over related patents speaks volumes. We've been around for
5
> years, and we've taken this issue seriously the entire time.
Absolutely it speaks volumes on the risk management front. But
Microsoft, for instance, pays out rather frequently to settle IP
suits, sometimes for reasons only peripherally related to their
validity; and I don't think watching what the big boys do counts as
due care.
> What I have said above we thought was common knowledge. There are
> probably very few Free Software projects that have dealt with this
issue
> as seriously as Xiph.org.
That's why I put you to the trouble of commenting; I thought
debian-legal needed a little injection of educated opinion from
someone with a first-hand clue. Common knowledge seems to fade as
rapidly as common sense.
> One last note: I am still on the board of the Xiph.org Foundation,
but
> Monty <monty@xiph.org> is currently the Executive Director. Tom
> Rosedale is our current legal counsel, but was not the attorney who
did
> the patent review, nor was he actively involved with us at the time
the
> patent review was done.
I hope I haven't put you to any trouble or expense by copying Mr.
Rosedale; some people prefer to have their legal counsel copied on
such issues when they list contact information on a page like
http://www.xiph.org/contact/ . I've added Mr. Montgomery on this
follow-up; please drop Mr. Rosedale if it's not necessary for him to
be involved.
> Feel free to continue copying me on the discussion. As a fellow
debian
> developer, I'm quite interested in this issue from both sides.
Thank you again for responding quickly and intelligently. You and
Xiph.org have my best wishes.
Cheers,
- Michael
Reply to: