IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Vorbis development, status & patent issues, PART 2 - Technical discussion
Gabriel
post Sep 25 2003, 14:37
Post #1


LAME developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 2950
Joined: 1-October 01
From: Nanterre, France
Member No.: 138



Moderator comment
Currently the Vorbis patent issue covers these threads:
Vorbis development, status & patent issues PART 1 - NON-technical discussion
Vorbis development, status & patent issues PART 2 - Technical discussion (This thread)
/Moderator comment

By looking at this:
http://www.xiph.org/archives/vorbis-dev/20...2/index.html#83
it seems that Xiph (at least in 2000) was open to the idea of disclosing the patent research.
Is this position changed now, or does it still stand?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
JohnV
post Oct 6 2003, 21:25
Post #2





Group: Developer
Posts: 2797
Joined: 22-September 01
Member No.: 6



QUOTE (jmvalin @ Oct 6 2003, 10:11 PM)
QUOTE (JohnV @ Oct 5 2003, 05:38 PM)
Ok, I asked Xiph's opinion about this specific issue discussed in this thread at Xiph's monthly meeting which is open to public. Here was the answer (the whole Xiphmeeting log can be read here):

JohnV, your quote is a bit misleading as it doesn't show that the discussion was already over (after we agreed that we should prepare a statement) for a while and at that point, you were just adding noise to the meeting (for those who haven't read the logs, the comments in the quote were interleaved with the "on topic stuff").

Discussion already over? In the logs one can see yourself talking about the patent issue with PsyQ (Ivan) in the same minute as I started! And where in the logs it said the patent talk ended? And why did it end so rapidly anyway, before people had really time to ask any questions?
I was just adding noise to the meeting by bringing up this HA thread?? Jeez?? You guys are just incredible...

I urge everybody to read the logs http://xiph.org/~jack/200310.txt and consider themselves if what you said is true...
In case someone doesn't bother I just directly copy lines here which happened before my first comment. Timestamps are from the Xiph log.
QUOTE
17:24 < xiphmont> Well, I'd have to be the technical side of making such an opinion wit the lawyer.
17:24 < purple_haese> It doesn't have to be elaborate, and it would be a clear sign of good will.
17:24 < derf_> In fact, you're potentially liable for up to triple damages just for reading the thing without consulting your lawyer, for "willful infringement".
17:25 < jack> derf ha sa point here.
17:25 < purple_haese> Yikes.
17:25 < PsyQ> derf: well, how is anyone who is not a lawyer qualified to call something "patent free"? smile.gif
17:25 < jack> let me ask the lawyer
17:25 < jmspeex> derf_: single/triple damage doesn't change a thing in our case.
17:25 < purple_haese> Well, then the best we can do, unfortunately, is to explain why we can't make specific statements about specific patents.
17:26 < jmspeex> PsyQ: we define "patent-free". It's like free software, RMS decides what qualifies as "free software"
17:26 < jack> purple_haese: that may be the case.  anyway, i'll send an email to tom and we'll figure out where to go from there.
17:26 < xiphmont> yes, we need some sort of statement.
17:27 < PsyQ> jmspeex: free software does not anything to do with "patent free", so I'd leave RMS out of this discussion smile.gif
17:27 < jack> ok..  stan, you had some changes to libao you wanted to discuss?
17:27 < purple_haese> Businesses that are interested in Vorbis can always take the money they save on licensing and put part of it toward their own patent opinion, or buy some liability insurance smile.gif
17:28 < PsyQ> ok - so you defined "patent free" as ?  I guess free of your own patents?
17:28 < jmspeex> PsyQ: What I mean is that when the FSF talks about "free software", they also define what they mean exactly by "free software". We should do the same with "patent-free".
17:28 < volsung> Should I jump in now?  smile.gif
17:28 -!- mackstann [~death@12-217-123-219.client.mchsi.com] has joined #xiphmeet
17:28 < JohnV> well.. I've gathered here the technical talk in HydrogenAudio regarding speculations whether US 5,214,742 can be avoided in a MDCT codec with window switching: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=13531


The patent discussion started at 17:14, and you are saying that at 17:28 my comment was already off-topic noise, also considering the direct quote from the discussion above? Nice... Frankly I thought that this topic would have been given more emphasis. I thought I was being polite not to shoot my comment right a way, rather give Xiph some time to first say its general view about the subject. I was not asking or wanting any round statements from a lawyer to my comment, rather some coder opinion and brief technical explanation about the principle of avoiding this patent in code in coder's point of view. Obviously Xiph's tactics was to get rid of this topic as soon as possible before the real questions come.


--------------------
Juha Laaksonheimo
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- Gabriel   Vorbis development, status & patent issues   Sep 25 2003, 14:37
- - c_haese   QUOTE (Ivan Dimkovic @ Sep 25 2003, 08:12 AM)...   Sep 25 2003, 14:43
- - Ivan Dimkovic   QUOTE Fair enough, let's start a scientific di...   Sep 25 2003, 14:53
- - Ivan Dimkovic   One more thing - the claims are not related to any...   Sep 25 2003, 14:59
- - menno   Claim 1 from patent US5214742: QUOTE 1. In a metho...   Sep 25 2003, 15:20
- - menno   1.3. High-level Decode Process It seems that the ...   Sep 25 2003, 15:41
- - Ivan Dimkovic   Ok, so we have a pretty clear basis for a serious ...   Sep 25 2003, 15:43
- - c_haese   I've already said everything I'm qualified...   Sep 25 2003, 16:03
- - Ivan Dimkovic   Well, at least there is a nice bunch of factual da...   Sep 25 2003, 16:14
- - petracci   QUOTE (Ivan Dimkovic @ Sep 25 2003, 05:36 PM)...   Sep 25 2003, 16:50
- - Ivan Dimkovic   QUOTE Claim 1 does not claim the "windowing/o...   Sep 25 2003, 16:56
- - petracci   QUOTE (Ivan Dimkovic @ Sep 25 2003, 05:56 PM)...   Sep 25 2003, 17:07
- - Ivan Dimkovic   QUOTE First of all, do you also think that claim 1...   Sep 25 2003, 17:22
- - petracci   Yes, Claim 4 is not easy to avoid. Claim 6 points ...   Sep 25 2003, 17:34
- - c_haese   QUOTE (Ivan Dimkovic @ Sep 25 2003, 11:22 AM)...   Sep 25 2003, 17:36
- - Ivan Dimkovic   QUOTE Wouldn't all claims have to apply to mak...   Sep 25 2003, 18:30
- - jmvalin   QUOTE (petracci @ Sep 25 2003, 11:34 AM)Yes, ...   Sep 25 2003, 23:31
- - JohnV   QUOTE (jmvalin @ Sep 26 2003, 01:31 AM)QUOTE ...   Sep 26 2003, 00:23
- - Ivan Dimkovic   I took a deeper look at the patent - It seems that...   Sep 26 2003, 01:05
- - Ivan Dimkovic   I mean - in my opinion, the purpose of the Claim 1...   Sep 26 2003, 01:13
- - ErikS   QUOTE (Ivan Dimkovic @ Sep 26 2003, 01:13 AM)...   Sep 26 2003, 01:48
- - petracci   QUOTE I took a deeper look at the patent - It seem...   Sep 26 2003, 08:59
- - Ivan Dimkovic   QUOTE E.g. incorporating the rate in the switching...   Sep 26 2003, 09:05
- - petracci   QUOTE I mean - in my opinion, the purpose of the C...   Sep 26 2003, 09:16
- - menno   Doesn't Parseval's Theorem say that freque...   Sep 26 2003, 09:19
- - Ivan Dimkovic   QUOTE I can obviously not say that either of us is...   Sep 26 2003, 09:21
- - petracci   QUOTE (Ivan Dimkovic @ Sep 26 2003, 10:21 AM)...   Sep 26 2003, 09:31
- - Ivan Dimkovic   I think it was: QUOTE 5853 Michael J. Smithers,Br...   Sep 26 2003, 09:48
- - petracci   QUOTE Doesn't Parseval's Theorem say that ...   Sep 26 2003, 09:49
- - petracci   QUOTE (Ivan Dimkovic @ Sep 26 2003, 10:48 AM)...   Sep 26 2003, 09:57
- - Ivan Dimkovic   I think we got into one very serous discussion rig...   Sep 26 2003, 10:04
- - petracci   QUOTE I think we got into one very serous discussi...   Sep 26 2003, 10:12
- - Ivan Dimkovic   http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/ffmp...=1.18...   Sep 26 2003, 10:38
- - petracci   QUOTE I dunno about the patent - will take some ti...   Sep 26 2003, 10:49
- - Ivan Dimkovic   Actually, I never tried that FFMPEG code, so I am ...   Sep 26 2003, 10:53
- - petracci   QUOTE Actually, I never tried that FFMPEG code, so...   Sep 26 2003, 11:01
- - Ivan Dimkovic   QUOTE If they paid for licensing that patent on wi...   Sep 26 2003, 11:06
- - DSPguru   QUOTE (Ivan Dimkovic @ Sep 26 2003, 16:53 PM)...   Sep 26 2003, 11:15
- - Ivan Dimkovic   QUOTE recently, the official ffmpeg homepage had b...   Sep 26 2003, 11:21
- - Ivan Dimkovic   QUOTE e.g. if the complete technological details w...   Sep 26 2003, 12:01
- - petracci   QUOTE Ivan Dimkovic That is also interesting,...   Sep 26 2003, 12:18
- - Ivan Dimkovic   QUOTE If a respected developer/researcher like Iva...   Sep 26 2003, 12:34
- - petracci   QUOTE You are right - I am not sure,  of cour...   Sep 26 2003, 14:18
- - danchr   QUOTE (DSPguru @ Sep 26 2003, 12:15 PM)QUOTE ...   Sep 27 2003, 11:09
- - c_haese   Okay, let's get back to the scientific problem...   Sep 29 2003, 22:17
- - menno   QUOTE (c_haese @ Sep 29 2003, 10:17 PM)After ...   Sep 30 2003, 14:03
- - Ivan Dimkovic   Ok, for those with lmiited ability to read: Inste...   Sep 30 2003, 23:09
- - JohnV   Thread re-arranged. This thread is now only for te...   Oct 1 2003, 09:00
- - jmvalin   QUOTE (Ivan Dimkovic @ Sep 30 2003, 05:09 PM)...   Oct 1 2003, 23:26
- - Ivan Dimkovic   QUOTE (jmvalin @ Oct 1 2003, 10:26 PM)QUOTE (...   Oct 2 2003, 09:21
- - JohnV   Ok, I asked Xiph's opinion about this specific...   Oct 5 2003, 23:38
- - Ivan Dimkovic   All in all, this is how I perceive the picture... ...   Oct 6 2003, 08:30
- - jmvalin   QUOTE (JohnV @ Oct 5 2003, 05:38 PM)Ok, I ask...   Oct 6 2003, 20:11
- - JohnV   QUOTE (jmvalin @ Oct 6 2003, 10:11 PM)QUOTE (...   Oct 6 2003, 21:25
- - jmvalin   QUOTE (JohnV @ Oct 6 2003, 03:25 PM)Discussio...   Oct 7 2003, 03:17
- - JohnV   QUOTE (jmvalin @ Oct 7 2003, 05:17 AM)I said ...   Oct 7 2003, 04:54
- - jmvalin   QUOTE I was the only one who was talking about tha...   Oct 7 2003, 06:40
- - JohnV   QUOTE (jmvalin @ Oct 7 2003, 08:40 AM)OK, fir...   Oct 7 2003, 07:09
- - Ivan Dimkovic   Like I said - if somebody is so sure he avoided pa...   Oct 7 2003, 08:06
- - PatchWorKs   I don't want to be boring, but i have to say i...   Oct 7 2003, 08:34
- - Dibrom   QUOTE (PatchWorKs @ Oct 7 2003, 12:34 AM)I do...   Oct 7 2003, 08:43
- - sthayashi   JohnV, It seems to me that Monty's unofficial...   Oct 7 2003, 14:22
- - Ivan Dimkovic   QUOTE (PatchWorKs @ Oct 7 2003, 07:34 AM)I do...   Oct 7 2003, 14:36
- - Ivan Dimkovic   QUOTE (sthayashi @ Oct 7 2003, 01:22 PM)JohnV...   Oct 7 2003, 15:02
- - rsilva   Let me try to "preach to the deaf" once ...   Oct 7 2003, 19:17
- - sthayashi   QUOTE (Ivan Dimkovic @ Oct 7 2003, 06:02 AM)W...   Oct 7 2003, 20:41
- - ScorLibran   QUOTE (sthayashi @ Oct 7 2003, 03:41 PM)QUOTE...   Oct 7 2003, 21:20
- - Ivan Dimkovic   QUOTE "Vorbis is a hybrid transform domain ge...   Oct 7 2003, 23:00
- - Ivan Dimkovic   QUOTE (sthayashi @ Oct 7 2003, 07:41 PM) QUOT...   Oct 7 2003, 23:04
- - PatchWorKs   From XviD.org website: QUOTE European parliament ...   Oct 8 2003, 09:39
- - Ivan Dimkovic   I don't know what XVid claims (and for what pa...   Oct 8 2003, 10:07
- - Ivan Dimkovic   QUOTE Sorry to be so boring...  Sorry if I s...   Oct 8 2003, 11:27
- - Garf   QUOTE (ScorLibran @ Oct 7 2003, 10:20 PM)(Not...   Oct 8 2003, 17:07
- - Diocletian   QUOTE (Ivan Dimkovic @ Sep 26 2003, 12:01 PM)...   Oct 9 2003, 18:27
- - ScorLibran   QUOTE (Diocletian @ Oct 9 2003, 01:27 PM)Do y...   Oct 9 2003, 19:09


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 2nd September 2014 - 15:11