On 7/18/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 7/18/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 7/18/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 7/18/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. -- Raul
