Re: MP3 decoder packaged with XMMS
On 7/18/05, Raul Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 7/18/05, Michael K. Edwards <email@example.com> wrote:
> > On 7/18/05, Raul Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > Are you suggesting that the use of time -> frequency domain mapping
> > > is not ostensibly covered by the presumptively valid patents?
> > If you want to know what I am suggesting, with regard to a particular
> > patent from the Fraunhofer suite (which I have looked at _very_
> > quickly and remember that in any case I am not qualified to judge),
> > read http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/07/msg00141.html .
> This seems tangential, and does not answer my question.
If the question is, "is it remotely plausible that Fraunhofer claims
to have patented the Discrete Cosine Transform or its application to
music compression", the answer is "no". How's that?
> > > Or, perhaps that all other such techniques which have been in use
> > > for quite some time (such as favoring frequencies which the human
> > > ear is sensitive to) are all not ostensibly covered by the presumptively
> > > valid patents?
> [more non-answer elided.]
> If you don't have a simple answer for these questions, please don't
> imply that you have.
Where, exactly, did I imply that? Either you're using the word
"covered" in some way that has nothing to do with the claimed scope of
the patent (in which case you are IMHO engaging in empty rhetoric), or
you have been grossly misinformed as to the claimed scope of the
Fraunhofer patents (and others claimed by reputable players in
multimedia compression). I'm guessing both.