[MEncoder-users] Free of patents codec

[Michael Niedermayer]

Hi

On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 09:31:17AM +0100, Raphael wrote:
[...]
> >>>>about theora, well lets try wikipedia:
> >>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theora
> >>>>----
> >>>>While VP3 is patented technology, On2 has irrevocably given royalty-free
> >>>>license of the VP3 patents to all of humanity, enabling the public to
> >>>>utilize Theora and other VP3-derived codecs for any imaginable purpose.
> >>>>----
> >>>>and yes vp3 == theora
> >>>>       
> >>>>
> >>>This is pure propaganda. One cannot grant any type of license, much
> >>>less permenant/royalty-free/irrevocable, on patents held by third
> >>>parties who are quite hostile to such things. :)
> >>>     
> >>>
> >>well, why not fix the wiki then?
> >>   
> >>
> >
> >1, i don't have wikipedia account and don't feel like getting started
> >on a new form of crack..
> >2, i suspect correcting this misinformation will just bring huge
> >flames. :( attacking xiph/theora is like attacking scientology...
[...]
> I am already regretting saying this but... who are the third parties in 
> the case of VP3? Are these unnamed theoretical third parties or some 
> specific group that On2 is in deniable about?  Also, I am not sure a 

it is not our job to check theora against patents, even though i think
the infamous vlc-rle coding patent with which jpeg was attacked might cover
theora too ...
and most important i dont claim that theora is covered by third party 
patents i just claim its likely covered and that noone can say its not
many webpages about theora say its not patented which is simply 
a very missleading statement which gives theoras users a very false
sense of safety, and this is morally very wrong, as the users should
know about the risks instead of the 
theora: patent and royality free,  mpeg: legally dangerous
while in reality IMHO mpeg-1 is legally far less dangerous then theora as 
it has been used by many for many years and noone has been sued AFAIK
furthermore mpeg-1 is a international standard and has a much cleaner
internal design then theora


> clear distinction is being made between patents that appear in the 
> record (i.e. were accepted by the patent office) and patents that have 
> any chance at all of standing up in court.  There are plenty of patents 
> on the books in the US that are clearly indefensible.

yes, there is a huge difference if you are a large company like microsoft
if not well, it will be much cheaper to pay the requested license fees then
going to court and getting the patent declared invalid, this is so by 
definition of being approached by the patent holder
keep in mind the patent holder is very well aware of the validty of the
patent and so he will not attack anyone who has any chance to win a patent
lawsuit
a small company with 3 products which all use the patented algorithm, the
company wont survive a few years where it cant sell its products due to 
court orders and it probably cant pay court & lawyer costs for a patent
lawsuit anyway, while OTOH paying 5$ for each sold copy isnt a problem

[...]
-- 
Michael