Re: MP3 decoder packaged with XMMS
On 7/18/05, Michael K. Edwards <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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?
Strawman -- overly specific.
> > > > 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.
You're great with implying things, but...
I'm grossly misinformed as to the "claimed scope of the Fraunhofer patents"
in the sense where you say "AIUI a court of fact has the discretion to more
or less completely rewrite the claims of a patent when it is litigated, "
By "covered" I mean "appears in the claims of a patent".
Am I being overly broad? Perhaps. But considering the lengths Ogg
Vorbis have had to go through, to avoid litigation, I think my approach is
representative of what the MP3 patent holders feel is valid.
If we're talking about "avoiding distribution of software to avoid potential
but as yet non-existent challenges", we're going to need to be fairly
broad in our consideration of what would be a potential threat.