similar to: Speex-dev Digest, Vol 49, Issue 6

Dear Speex developer(s), We are currently in the process of evaluating speech codecs for the transmission of wideband speech (fs=16kHz) at bitrates lower than 32 kb/s. Speex is a contender for this task. Practically we would have to port Speex to a specific 16 bit DSP if we would go for this. We should be able to handle this. But we would like to ask for your opinion regarding patent

Hi, I need to get an overview over the memory/speed requirements for speex. We want to investigate whether we can implement on a target processor with limited resources. The target processor is a 16 bit fixed pint DSP with a single ALU and MAC. It runs at 60 MHz and has a total of 16 Kbytes RAM from which other processing also will eat. What we would like to implement is a speex encoder and

> > > > I’m still not completely convinced by this argument, given that the > majority of patent lawsuits come from NPEs. That is not necessarily where the majority of patent lawsuit *danger* comes from, and i'd argue, pretty strongly, it's not the most likely case for LLVM. > We’d still be in the situation where a malicious contributor could: > > 1. Spin up a

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

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

> On Aug 10, 2017, at 2:59 PM, Rafael Avila de Espindola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > > I can find old threads about it, but nothing saying why it was decided > that contributor agreement wouldn't work. Care to send the URL? Here are some quick points that come to mind: 1. It raises the bar to contribution, because something must be “signed” before a

Hi Rafael, We’ve discussed why a license change is preferable over the span of several years now. I’m happy to explain over the phone, contact me off list and we can talk. -Chris > On Aug 10, 2017, at 8:33 AM, Rafael Avila de Espindola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > I still don't see any justification in the text why a license change is >

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

This has already been discussed extensively in the public. The threads are available in the archives. -Chris > On Aug 10, 2017, at 1:05 PM, Rafael Avila de Espindola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > > Sorry, but I really don't think a private conversation is appropriate > for such discussions. > > If the motive cannot be explained in public I have no choice

Hi all, Now that we’ve settled on the license legalese to get to, we need to start the process of relicensing. We’re still sorting through all of the details of what this will take, but the first step is clear: new contributions to LLVM will need to be under both the old license structure and the new one (until the old structure is completely phased out). From a mechanical perspective, this is

----- Forwarded message from Mark Lewis <mlewis@webnoize.com> ----- Delivery-Date: Tue Nov 21 10:15:55 2000 Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 10:07:15 -0800 From: Mark Lewis <mlewis@webnoize.com> Reply-To: mlewis@webnoize.com Organization: Webnoize News X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) To: monty@xiph.org Subject: liked your article at http://xiph.org/about.html here's an article about

The specific standards process used to develop the MPEG codecs creates patent minefields that royalty-free codecs don't generally face. Because many knowledgeable people have heard of the problems faced by these patent-soup standards, they may extrapolate these risk to codecs developed under a different process where these problems are less considerable. This is a mistake, and I'll explain

> Take a look at: > > http://swpat.ffii.org/patents/effects/voip/index.en.html Well, outside of the Speex link, that page seems to be pretty old... > Is speex realy petant free or does patent free only means that > is is not patent by the speex authors? Who have checked that > speex doesn't violates patents others? I don't use IP here, > because most patents are

Cologne, 10.12.00 Dear Sir, Dear Madam, We are concerned about the possibility that the European Commission might introduce software patenting into the European Community because we think this will harm our profession. We make our living on data management and statistical analyses. Modern statistics crucially depends on algorithms [cf. Venables, W. N., & Ripley, B. D. (1999). Modern applied

I hate following up to myself, but I thought a clarification of one point (specifically WRT RC5 which was mentioned in the original question) might be worthwhile...because what I should have said originally was that "To the best of my non-legally- admissible knowledge, however, none of the algorithms in the current *OpenSSH* implementation are currently encumbered by patents that would

Hello Theora developers, I'm doing some cursory research into Theora's IP status in preparation for asking Apple to reconsider the possibility of shipping an implementation. I have a few questions and I'm hoping knowledgeable people can help out. 1) What are the terms of any patent licenses or disclaimers, and do they have field of use restrictions or limitations on code for

Hi, We are in the business of developing/productizing Multimedia codecs for embedded systems. Recently, Vorbis has gained good popularity. We are also developing it. But we face few problems related to patents. Vorbis claims to be patent free. Is there any particular search made for possible patent infringements and corresponding report published? We need to convince our customers sometime

I did some research on patent claims on range and arithmetic coding. The original range code pdf presented in the UK by an ibm employee at the time asserts no patent claims what so ever. If there are patents I cant find em. I have the original paper in PDF if anyone cares to see it. Its a good candidate for encoding because browsing a few of the implememntations avaialable on line, I can roll my

Sunil-- Actually, you do not "see that openssl has some patent issues." You do see that OpenSSL implements many algorithms, some of which have been (at various times) been patented or encumbered in some countries. Without knowing what country you're in, none of us here can really give useful advice as to which software/algorithm patents could potentially apply. To the best of my

I've dug down as far as I could on www.uspto.gov for anything remotely close to what is going on with Verizon and all searches end with only two possibilities in regards to what is going on. So unless the patent was issued to someone else and Verizon bought it, these are the only two possible patents this case could be based on... US 7,142,646 B2 Voice mail integration with instant