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 from my iPad" http://blogs.fsfe.org/hugo/2010/04/open-letter-to-steve-jobs/
Patrick Aljord <patcito at gmail.com> wrote ..> A patent pool is being assembled to go after Theora and other "open source" > codecs now.The response from Steve Jobs made me think of Eben Moglen's comment at [1], from rougly 0:19 - 1:08 of the whole video. Although in the entire video Eben was talking about the Microsoft/Novell deal, I think that part of the video could be applied here. Thank goodness for people like Eben Moglen and the Software Freedom Law Center. :) The FSF has weighed in at [2]. Specifically: "We have legal assurances from the only publicly claimed patent holders that Ogg Theora can be used both commercially and noncommercially, in any software, by anyone, without royalty. Of course, other patents may arise, and we will have to fight them if they do. H.264 could also find itself dealing with some hitherto unknown patent claims in the future; that's just the nature of the system. Buying a license to H.264 does not magically protect you from such submarine attacks. The software patent system is broken and we will continue campaigning for its abolition. * <http://endsoftpatents.org> You can help with this campaign by watching and sharing the new film, Patent Absurdity: How software patents broke the system. * <http://patentabsurdity.com> In the meantime, "Everything could be patented anyway" is not an argument for "Give up even trying and just submit to MPEG-LA." It's an argument for Ogg Theora, and against software patents." [1] http://tinyogg.com/watch/G4jnm/ [2] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-fsf/2010-04/msg00004.html
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Patrick Aljord <patcito at gmail.com> wrote:> 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 from my iPad"It would seem both surprising and remarkably underhanded, even considering the probable involved parties, to undertake constructing a patent pool for some product without ever consulting the vendor of that product: Surely no good faith effort to construct a valid and usable patent pool for a codec could be undertaken without contacting the developers of the codec. In particular? according to the US Department of Justice "A licensing scheme premised on invalid or expired intellectual property rights will not withstand antitrust scrutiny." So, even though it is apparent that the Xiph.org or its participants would have no interest in receiving royalties from such a pool a failure to contact the developers in an effort to determine the validity of any potential patent claim would be unconscionable. Since the developers of Theora have received no such contact, I can only conclude that no such effort is being undertaken and that the quoted statement is either a forgery, the result of a misunderstanding, or that the statement may be indicative of a dishonest and anti-competitive collusion by Apple and other H.264 patent holders to interfere which the development, promotion, and utilization of unencumbered media standards.