> On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 11:37:39PM +0100, Matthew William Solloway Bell wrote: > > The packages libxine1, ffmpeg, include libfaad*, libx264* or another > > codec which implement the MPEG-4 Advanced Audio Coding and Advanced > > Video Coding standards. Unfortunately, these are patent encumbered in at > > least the USA, and many other countries. To distribute code implementing > > any of these patents, a license is required[1], assuming that the > > claimed patents are valid. This license requires signing an agreement > > and the payment of royalties, which hasn't been done AFAIK, and is > > contrary to policy. > > There is evidence of prior attempts of enforcement, specifically against > > FAAD at AudioCoding.com[2]. > > This appears to refer to enforcement of patents covering encoding using the > codecs in question. Do libxine1 and ffmpeg implement encoding of these, or > just decoding? Is there a history of enforcement of patents on decoding of > the codecs in question?
Hmmm, I think I have missed something; what makes you draw this conclusion? AudioCoding.com has removed all binaries including those related to decoding. I see no reference to encoding only in [2]. The licensing authorities in [1] have licenses that cover decoders. I did look at their patent portfolio, but is was brief and shallow. I'm having a closer look now. libxine: libfaad (AAC decoder) vlc: libfaad (AAC decoder); libx264 (AVC decoder) libavcodec0: libfaad (AAC decoder); libx264 (AVC decoder) AFAIK, libx264 is a decoder only but the decoding functions are called x264_encoder_? > Further, it has been brought to my attention > > that a reasonable belief that patents are not valid is sufficient > > condition for being able to distribute software that comes under such a > > license (subject to ftp master agreement). This is the only evidence I > > could find supporting such a belief[3]. It does not appear that > > significant prior art exists for any/all of the MPEG-4 patents. > > There has been some discussion on the lists before about this issue with > > no particular conclusion[4]. > > The ffii.org page you point to explicitly states their opinion that the > patents in question contain no substantive creative element, i.e., the > patents are invalidated by prior art in the field. Why do you draw the > opposite conclusion that "it does not appear that significant prior art > exists", citing only the ffii.org page itself? My apologies, that should read 'It does not appear to me that..." which is based on the conclusion of the previous sentence. I was rather hoping someone would be able to support or contradict this. Regarding my comments on 'prior art', I did not consider 'prior art' to be semantically identical to 'no inventive step'; however, I considered both to be sufficient condition to deem the patents invalid. Of course, I'm not a patent lawyer. Matthew W. S. Bell -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
