similar to: Patent issues, what features we can't use?

The H.264 codec patent by Qualcomm has been ruled invalid by a San Diego Federal jury: http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=197001066 . That means that H.264 codecs can now be written, distributed and revised freely under any license their authors choose, including GPL, public domain, or any other, and $free now that royalties are no longer required. How does H.264

Hello everyone, Some months ago there were news about J2 filing lawsuits against companies using fax-to-email technology, as they claimed it was their patent. They had also won some cases, until someone filed a counter lawsuit against them based some other grounds but again related to fax-to-email. Anybody knows what is latest in this regard? Can now fax-to-email be used without fear of being

Patenting a mathematical formula is NOT creating a machine nor is it unique. For example. 2+2=4... apples + apples^2= given outcome. I want to patent this. It's stupid to patent something like that. The same is true for formula algorithms. Algorithms occur in nature. Thus should not be patented. Now, Volley G Mathison inventor of the Electropsychometer had a machine that he could patent. A

> >So uh, you think it's worth more for mp3, than the actual music > >involved? > > > >Come on. > > Hmm.. so what you're saying is that for under $2K I can get an unlimited > distribution license from the recording industry? To burn, distribute, > sell and market as much of their material as I like? Wow. Sign me up. Streaming music is $250

On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:34 AM, Andrew Joakimsen <joakimsen at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Tilghman Lesher > <tilghman at mail.jeffandtilghman.com> wrote: >> It is completely illegal in any country that recognizes patents. > > You mean countries that recognize software patents, right? As resident of country where the file is hosted - yes we

> I agree with that much of it, but that doesn't seem to me like such a "bad" > deal. I applaud the vorbis effort, don't get me wrong, but I don't think > it's evil for Frauhofer/IIS to charge people who want to use their > technology if they're using it for profit. It may be ugly and unsavory, > but it's nothing to get terribly upset over. I

Hi all, The vorbis codec is patent and royalty-free, but for mp3 one should in principle pay royalties to Fraunhofer institute ($0.05 or so ?) for each song recorded. But what about .ogg files that are made out of .mp3 files? Does the royalty then somehow inherit to the .ogg file? Just a thought... Roland -- --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage:

Hello. Can Opus provide better quality than MP3 320kbps? Can Russian resident use opus for encoding music file without any limitations from any countries laws and patents, so .opus file can be loaded directly on any website and get revenue from it without any royalties or licenses? Thanks Konstantin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Looks like the mpeg gestapo are frantically at work cracking down on mpeg projects. Several important projects (tsunami mpeg, gogo, faac, etc) were shut down by the jack booted patent nazis. Since FhG, mpegla, etc plan to start charging royalties on everything even remotely mpeg-related very soon, I expect a lot of interest is going to shift to Vorbis. And soon thereafter, I expect FhG to attack

I guess you've all read it already, but here it goes: "All video codecs are covered by patents. A patent pool is being assembled to go after Theora and other ?open source? codecs now. Unfortunately, just because something is open source, it doesn?t mean or guarantee that it doesn?t infringe on others patents. An open standard is different from being royalty free or open source. Sent

Hi folks, I was curious what's known about the patent situation with the DV format. Google turns up a number of press articles describing it as an "open standard with no associated licensing fees" but also, for example, US Patent number 5,691,81 which, while I've not done a careful comparison of the claims, sounds like it covers the block-rearrangement scheme that's the

This document from Qualcomm may help. http://www.qualcomm.com/media/documents/qualcomm-dash-licensing-commitment it states : Companies will not have to pay royalties or license fees because they have implemented the DASH Standard using Qualcomm's DASH Essential Patents within a standalone software application sold and distributed separately from a product capable of implementing a WWAN

> performances. That's ~125,000 performances a year, which equates to about > $180,000. > > Significantly higher than the Frauhofer license, unless you generate > $9Mil/yr or more in revenue from your stream. The rates are in arbitration, and I doubt they will come out anywhere near that amount. It just isn't feasible, even for large companies. Reember, tradidional

Does the reason Theora is relatively safe from patent infringement lawsuit have more to do with it actually not being encumbered, or is it because its use is decentralized? For example, FreeType is not patent-free, nor is Linux, yet they succeed because on the one hand, they are open source, and those who maintain them do not guarantee anything regarding patents, it is up to each individual user

Hi all, <p>i have readed all the realy sad stuff about software patents in europe and what allread exists. There is one side related to speex and i dont know if this is allready discussed here. Take a look at: http://swpat.ffii.org/patents/effects/voip/index.en.html Is speex realy petant free or does patent free only means that is is not patent by the speex authors? Who have checked that

Well, apparently, no pure software solution can be patented (hardware can), least that's what I saw on the national news here in the UK 2 weeks ago. Clive --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'speex-dev-request@xiph.org' containing only the word

Hi. Is it possible (legally) to stream MP3s on Icecast that have been encoded with LAME encoder (http://lame.sourceforge.net/license.txt)? So if a composer writes a track, then saves in MP3 with LAME, and wants to distribute with Icecast server, is it legal? Must he get license for MP3 (http://mp3licensing.com/royalty/emd.html) and pay any royalties for MP3 DISTRIBUTING or STREAMING as it stated

Hello, Ok, and that's too many work to review a source code.In my codec, I have 3 compression schemes, I think 2 are not patented, but the third... I don't know.For the rest, I think my codec is patent-free (I don't use SPIHT,EZW,zerotree methods), even the wavelet transform is new and don't use the lifting scheme nor the convolution product. Else, if you found time to review the

Hi list, I am planning a migration to virtual machines, and was considering with it to move from 1.4 to one of the later versions. My and my clients' 1.4 setups have been rock solid and I don't want to put myself into any unnecessary trouble. Those of you with solid experience with all these versions, what would you suggest? What new and exciting enhancements would newer versions bring

Hi, I'd set the daylight saving option to yes on all the GXP-2000 phones, but apparantly it doesn't move it an hour back on last sunday of October. So now I am stuck will all the phones showing the wrong time. Isn't there an option so that it'll automatically update daylight savings? Thanks -- Zeeshan A Zakaria -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was